(PC)Thomas v. Doe

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5

6 7 10 11 ERNEST THOMAS, Case No. 1:24-cv-01319-HBK (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AS PREMATURE 13 v. (Doc. No. 16)

15 Defendant.

16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed Motion to Compel.1 (Doc. No. 16). 18 Citing CDCR regulations, Plaintiff requests the Court to order the unknown and unserved 19 Defendants to provide him access to certain surveillance video and body camera footage from 20 October 27, 2023 through October 30, 2023. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff claims this video evidence is 21 necessary to refute statements made in response to his grievance and prove the veracity of factual 22 allegations he made in is First amended Complaint. (Id.). 23 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure distinguish between parties and non-parties in 24

25 1 This is Plaintiff’s second motion to compel Defendants to produce the same material: Building Two “A” Yard video footage from October 27, 2023 through October 30, 2023. (Compare Doc. No. 10, with Doc. 26 No. 16). Relatedly, the Court previously took issue with Plaintiff’s contradictory timeline regarding Jane Doe in the Court’s first screening order. (See Doc. No. 5 at 6). However, the Court subsequently noted in 27 its Second Screening Order that the date of the blood draw (and whether it occurred on October 27 or October 30) was immaterial to its determination that the FAC failed to state a viable claim. (Doc. No. 12 at 28 4 n.3, 6-7). 1 | establishing available discovery devices and remedies. Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 2 | Canada Inc., 617 F.3d 1146, 1158 (9th Cir. 2010). Although Plaintiff relies on CDCR 3 | regulations, cases in federal courts are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4 | Generally, when a party fails to comply with a proper discovery request, the non-offending party 5 || moves under Rule 37 to compel compliance. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(1). Alternatively, Rule 45 6 | subpoenas are used to obtain documents or testimony from non-parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. 7 | Because Plaintiff seeks an order compelling disclosure of CDCR video footage, which would be 8 | in the possession or under the control of a party if this case were to proceed, the Court construes 9 | the pleading as a motion to compel discovery. 10 To the extent Plaintiff seeks to identify a “genuine issue[] of material fact” for “the jury,” 11 | he is several steps ahead of where the case currently stands procedurally. (Doc. No. 16 at 3). In 12 | the interest of judicial economy, the Court typically does not begin the discovery process until the 13 || operative complaint has been screened, any eligible defendants have been served, and those 14 | defendants have answered the complaint. See Hernandez v. Williams, 2019 WL 5960089 (S.D. 15 | Cal. April 27, 2022); see also Somoza v. Dir. of California Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., 2022 WL 16 | 2359679, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2022) (“Discovery will commence only after defendants have 17 | appeared in this action . . .. Plaintiff's first amended complaint must be screened and found to 18 | state cognizable claims prior to service on any defendant.” (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A)). Because 19 | no party has yet been served, let alone been made subject to a discovery and scheduling order, 20 | Plaintiff's renewed motion to compel discovery is premature. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to 21 | Compel is denied. To the extent Plaintiff wishes CDCR to preserve the video footage, he should 22 | make such a request directly to CDCR, as appropriate. 23 According, it is ORDERED: 24 Plaintiff's renewed motion to compel (Doc. No. 16) is DENIED as premature. °° | Dated: _ May 19, 2025 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte 6 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE