United States District Court, D. Arizona
S. Willett, United States Magistrate Judge
Court's rulings on a number of pending motions filed by
Plaintiff are set forth below.
Plaintiff's Discovery Motions
16, 2016, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting forth a
procedure for resolving discovery disputes. (Doc. 19 at 3).
In bold letters, the Court advised the parties that the Court
will not consider a motion regarding discovery matters unless
(i) the parties have attempted to resolve the matter through
personal consultation and sincere effort as required by Local
Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(j) and (ii) the parties have
participated in a discovery conference with the Court. The
Scheduling Order set forth the requirements for filing a
request for a discovery conference, and informed the parties
that a request that does not comply with those requirements
may be stricken. (Id.). Finally, the Court advised
the parties in bold letters that a discovery motion that is
filed in noncompliance with the requirements set forth in the
Scheduling Order may be stricken. (Id.). Plaintiff
has filed the following motions pertaining to discovery:
1. “Motion to have Defendants Supply Complete Medical
Records per Discovery Request” (Doc. 36);
2. “Order Defendants to Produce Discovery” (Doc.
3. “Motion Ordering Defendants to Produce
[Discovery]” (Doc. 56);
4. “Motion to Order Defendants to Produce” (Doc.
5. “Motion to Order Defendant Utterbecks Counsel to
Produce Discovery” (Doc. 89).
discovery motions do not comply with the requirements set
forth in the Court's Scheduling Order. Accordingly, they
will be stricken.
Plaintiff's Filed Discovery Requests and
Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d) states that “the following
discovery requests and responses must not be filed until they
are used in the proceeding or the court orders filing:
depositions, interrogatories, requests for documents or
tangible things or to permit entry onto land, and requests
for admission.” LRCiv 5.2 provides that “[a]
‘Notice of Service' of the disclosures and
discovery requests and responses listed in Rule 5(d) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be filed within a
reasonable time after service of such papers.”
Plaintiff has filed the following discovery requests in this
1. “Discovery Request” (Doc. 26);
2. “2nd Discovery Request” (Doc. 45);
3. “Amended Discovery Request to Defendant
Utterbeck” (Doc. 66);
4. “Discovery Request (3rd to Defendants
Rojas and E[nde]) (Doc. 69);
5. “Third Request to Defendants Ende and Roja's
Counsel” (Doc. 90); and
6. “Notice to J. Scott Conlon for Discovery
Production” (Doc. 92).
has not “used” these discovery requests in the
proceeding (e.g. by relying upon responses in support of a
motion, supporting a motion to compel, etc.). Therefore,
Plaintiff's filing of the actual discovery requests
instead of a “Notice of Service” is in violation
of LRCiv 5.2 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d). The
Court will direct the Clerk of Court to strike the filings
(Docs. 26, 45, 66, 69, 90, 92). Similarly, Plaintiff's
filing of his discovery responses at Docs. 20 and 46 violates
LRCiv 5.2 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d) and the
responses will be stricken. The Court will deem
Plaintiff's discovery requests and responses to have been
served on Defendants as of the date of filing.
Plaintiff's “Motion to have Defendants provide
Marshalls [sic] [with] Home Address of Defendant Dentist
Doe” (Doc. 35) and “Motion Substituting Defendant
Laura Hale cause she can not be found to be served”
14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion (Doc. 35) indicating that
he has discovered that Defendant Dentist Doe's name is
Laura Hale. Plaintiff states that he has been informed by
Defendants that Defendant Hale is no longer employed by the
Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADOC”), but
that ADOC has her contact information. Plaintiff requests the
Court to provide Defendant Hale's contact information to
the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) to
effectuate service. Defendants have not responded to
Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 35), and the time to do so has
passed. See LRCiv 7.2(i) (failing to file a
responsive brief may be deemed consent to the granting of the
motion). The Court will grant Plaintiff's Motion (Doc.
35) and will direct counsel for Defendant Utterbeck to file
under seal Defendant Hale's last known address.
Plaintiff's “Motion Substituting Defendant Laura
Hale cause she can not be found to be served” (Doc.
101) will be denied.
Plaintiff's Motions for an Order Granting Plaintiff
Access to a Typewriter
28, 2016, Plaintiff filed two identical documents captioned
“Motion for Access to Typewriter” (Docs. 49, 50).
Plaintiff seeks an order requiring ADOC to give Plaintiff
access to a typewriter for the purpose of preparing documents
related to this action. Defendant Utterbeck has filed his
Response (Doc. 51) to Plaintiff's request. On July 14,
2016, Plaintiff filed a “Qualified Disability for
Motion for a Typewriter” (Doc. 57). Because the filing
addresses arguments made in Defendant Utterbeck's
Response (Doc. 51), it is deemed ...