(PC) Hammler v. Diaz

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 ALLEN HAMMLER, Case No. 2:20-cv-1890-DC-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RALPH DIAZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a motion requesting that the court 18 order the preservation of a recorded interview. ECF No. 93. Plaintiff’s motion is denied because 19 defendants already have a general duty to preserve evidence. See Ameripride Svcs., Inc. v. Valley 20 Indus. Serv., Inc., No. CIV-S-00-113 LKK-JFM, 2006 WL 2308442, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 21 2006) (citing National Ass’n of Radiation Survivors v. Turnage, 115 F.R.D. 543, 566-67 22 (N.D.Cal.1987)). If plaintiff has concerns regarding the preservation, he should send notices to 23 preserve evidence defense counsel. See Picozzi v. Nevada, 2023 WL 11920185, at *2 (D. Nev. 24 April 12, 2023). 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to preserve evidence, 26 ECF No. 93, is denied. 27 28 1 | 1718 SO ORDERED. 3 ( — Dated: _ March 12. 2025 ssn (aioe 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 g 9 10 il 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28