Linlor v. Conn

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 30, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-01806
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES LINLOR, Case No.: 22cv1806

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY 13 v. MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY [Doc No. 17] 14 JUSTIN CONN et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court is plaintiff James Linlor’s Emergency Motion to Compel Discovery 18 of Videos to Protect Plaintiff’s Child (the “Motion”), through which plaintiff seeks an order 19 compelling the production of certain security footage and requiring defendants and their 20 counsel to meet-and-confer with him. See Doc. No. 17. “A party may not seek discovery 21 from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f),” unless the 22 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for early discovery, the parties so stipulate, or a 23 court orders early discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). Even if plaintiff propounds early 24 document requests under Rule 34, such requests are deemed served at the first Rule 26(f) 25 conference. See id. R. 26(d)(2). Rule 26(f) conferences are ordinarily held no later than 21 26 days prior to the scheduling conference. Id. Rule 26(f)(1). Requests for expedited discovery 27 generally require a showing of “good cause.” See Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., 28 1 || 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “Good cause may be found where the need for 2 |}expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the 3 || prejudice to the responding party.” Id. 4 Plaintiff argues defendants are in possession of security video footage that would 5 ||help plaintiff identify “child molesters,” which would thus enable plaintiff to “be on the 6 || lookout” for those “child molesters.” Doc. No. 17 at 2-3. Plaintiff does not indicate that he 7 actually propounded discovery requests, met and conferred as required by Court rules 8 || prior to filing the Motion, or otherwise articulated the need to order expedited discovery. 9 || However, mindful of the requirement to favorably construe pro se pleadings, the Court 10 || construes plaintiff's filing as a request for leave to propound early discovery. The Court is 11 ||not aware of any legal authority explicitly supporting the issuance of expedited discovery 12 || on facts like these, and as stated, plaintiff has brought none to the Court’s attention. Further, 13 || plaintiff has not shown how the “administration of justice” requires expedited discovery 14 The Local Rules of this District provide for an Early Neutral Evaluation and Case 15 ||Management Conference to be scheduled if and when an Answer is filed. See Civ. L. R. 16 || 16.1(c)-(d). At such time that the Early Neutral Evaluation in this matter is scheduled, the 17 || Court will order the parties to meet and confer as required by Rule 26(f), which will trigger 18 commencement of discovery in this matter. Plaintiff's emergency motion does not set 19 || forth a basis for deviation from that default schedule. The Motion is accordingly DENIED. 20 || Dated: January 30, 2023 Jk. Kn 21 Ml Ye □□ 2 Hori. Karen 8S. Crawford United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28