Anderson v. California Department of Correction

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBERT D. ANDERSON, Case No. 20-cv-04368-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 25 10 M. MCGALLON, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff has filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Now pending before 14 the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. Dkt. No. 25. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is 15 DENIED without prejudice to re-filing after he complies with the meet-and-confer requirement set 16 forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and N.D. Cal. L. R. 37-1(a). Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) requires that a 17 motion to compel discovery “include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or 18 attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to 19 obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Local Rule 37-1(a) provides that the 20 Court will not entertain a request or a motion to resolve a discovery dispute unless, pursuant to 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, counsel have previously conferred for the purpose of attempting to resolve all 22 disputed issues. N.D. Cal. L. R. 37-1(a). Plaintiff’s motion to compel lacks the necessary 23 certification that Plaintiff has conferred in good faith with Defendants in an effort to obtain the 24 requested discovery without court action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED 25 without prejudice to re-filing with the requisite certification if he is unable to resolve the dispute 26 after good faith meet-and-confer efforts. 27 Plaintiff is advised to familiarize himself with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 1 respect to their pleadings, but are nonetheless required to comply with the rules of litigation 2 procedures. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by 3 || Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same 4 || rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”). 5 This order terminates Dkt. No. 25. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: 3/19/2021

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28