Free Order on Motion to Compel - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-03165-CRB

Document 22

Filed 07/31/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 RAYNARD B. HILL, 9 Plaintiff(s), 10 vs. 11 JOSEPH CHUDY, et al., 12 Defendant(s). 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff's motion (doc # 21) for an order compelling discovery is DENIED as premature. The court will not entertain discovery motions unless the parties first comply with the meet-and-confer requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's Local Rules. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) (motion to compel must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the party not making the disclosure in an effort to secure the disclosure without court action); Civ. L. R. 37-1 (same). In view of plaintiff's incarceration, the parties may satisfy the meet-and-confer requirements by letter or telephone conversation. Cf. Civil L. R. 1-5(n) ("meet and confer" or "confer" means to communicate directly and discuss in good faith the issue(s); mere sending of a written, electronic or voice-mail communication does not satisfy a requirement to "meet and confer" or to "confer;" requirement can be satisfied only through direct dialogue and discussion ­ either in a face to face meeting or in a telephone conversation). ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 07-3165 CRB (PR) ORDER (Doc # 21)

Case 3:07-cv-03165-CRB

Document 22

Filed 07/31/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Good cause appearing, the filing deadline for plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment is extended to September 12, 2008. SO ORDERED. DATED: July 31, 2008 CHARLES R. BREYER United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.07\Hill, R1.or3.wpd

27 28 2