Had to do this, in order to get heard on the motion to compel discovery, which I posted earlier this week.
7
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 27 REPORT PAGE 1 OF 4 08-cv-01354 (PR) JF REPORT ON DISCOVERY In its Standing Order re Civil Discovery Disputes, the Court required that the parties report, in detail, on the status of discovery, and, in particular, to identify any unresolved issues concerning a discovery request. In response to this order, the plaintiff states: Discovery Request in Issue In addition to phone calls, e-mails, and letters, plaintiff served a formal request for production of prior statements on Defendant Santa Clara County Public Defender’s Office for any and all statements concerning James Alan Bush 471 East Julian Street San Jose, California 95112 (408) 791-4866 [email protected]Plaintiff in pro per UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION James Alan Bush, Plaintiff, v. Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety, et al., Defendants. Case No. 08-cv-01354 LHK PLAINTIFF’S REPORT ON DISCOVERY Judge Howard R. Lloyd
Transcript
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
27
REPORT PAGE 1 OF 4 08-cv-01354 (PR) JF
REPORT ON DISCOVERY
In its Standing Order re Civil Discovery Disputes, the Court required
that the parties report, in detail, on the status of discovery, and, in
particular, to identify any unresolved issues concerning a discovery
request. In response to this order, the plaintiff states:
Discovery Request in Issue
In addition to phone calls, e-mails, and letters, plaintiff served
a formal request for production of prior statements on Defendant Santa
Clara County Public Defender’s Office for any and all statements concerning
James Alan Bush471 East Julian StreetSan Jose, California 95112(408) [email protected]
Plaintiff in pro per
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
James Alan Bush,
Plaintiff,
v.
Sunnyvale Department ofPublic Safety, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 08-cv-01354 LHK
PLAINTIFF’S REPORT ON DISCOVERY
Judge Howard R. Lloyd
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
27
REPORT PAGE 2 OF 4 08-cv-01354 (PR) JF
the pendency of this action and its particulars of the service of
summons and complaint by the plaintiff that were made by the defendant
as representative counsel for the plaintiff in in the Superior Court
of California, County of Santa Clara, Criminal Division, in case number
CC828198; however, the defendant has refused, and continues to refuse,
to produce these statements whatsoever, even though, in his request and
other correspondence, the plaintiff explained the time-sensitive nature of
this request, and specifically informed the defendant and counsel of their
obligation under the provisions of Rules 26(b)(3)(C) and 34 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure to produce these statements within 30 days (see
the attached exhibit for an exact copy of the discovery request in issue).
Plaintiff’s Compliance with Standing Order Requirements
In order to obtain the requested discovery without court intervention,
and to otherwise meet his obligation per the standing order to diligently
strive to resolve this dispute, the plaintiff took these specific steps:
a. On December 20th, 2011, the plaintiff requested by e-mail to
counsel for the defendant for a stipulation to the fact that a
notice of this lawsuit and a request for a waiver of service of
summons was received by the defendant, and, in particular, that the
defendant stated on record in a state court that service of process
was made on them by the plaintiff.
b. On January 10th, 2012, the plaintiff clarified the relevance and
time-sensitive nature of the request by letter, by explaining that
the information was critical to the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the
order of dismissal against the defendant for the purported failure
of the plaintiff to serve process, and that the date of the hearing
of this motion was imminent.
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
27
REPORT PAGE 3 OF 4 08-cv-01354 (PR) JF
c. On January 12th, 2012, a formal request for the production of
prior statements was served on the defendant through its counsel,
which advised the defendant that a response was required within
30 days of their receipt of this request per Rule 34, and that per
Rule 26(b)(3)(C), no privilege or work product protection could be
claimed.
d. Two follow-up phone calls were made after each attempt to obtain
the requested information.
Plaintiff was unable to comply with the meet-and-confer requirement
of the standing order because the defendant failed to respond whatsoever
to his request for discovery; however, even though the standing order
prohibits the Court from entertaining a motion to resolve a discovery
dispute unless the parties have previously conferred for the purpose
of attempting to resolve said dispute, Civil Local Rule 37-1(a) allows
the Court to issue an order compelling discovery, and even to impose
sanctions, if the dispute is caused by the refusal and/or failure of the
defendant to confer [see ND Cal Civ LR 37-1(a)].
For the same reason, the plaintiff was unable to file this report
jointly.
Timeliness of Discovery Report
This report is timely filed, in that it contains all of the claims made
in the motion to compel discovery that serves as the basis of this report,
which was filed within seven court days after the date a response to the
discovery request was due, as required by Civil Local Rule 26-2 [see
ND Cal Civ LR 26-2].
Request for Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions
The defendant’s refusal to comply with the plaintiff’s discovery
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
27
REPORT PAGE 4 OF 4 08-cv-01354 (PR) JF
request is unjustified, especially considering that the information
requested is time-sensitive, and given the amount of time since the first
request was first made, i.e., December 20th, 2011; moreoever, the defendant
has not filed any protective order under Rule 26(c), thereby precluding the
excuse that the discovery sought is objectionable, and per Rule 26(b)(3)(C),
cannot claim privilege or work product protection for any prior statement
made concerning the action or its subject matter.
Accordingly, the request of the Court is for permission to file, and
for the consideration of, the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, made
pursuant to Rule 37(a)(3)(A).
Dated: February 24th, 2012
By: X James Alan Bush
Plaintiff in pro per
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
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
27
EXHIBIT A PAGE 1 OF 3 08-cv-01354 LHK
EXHIBIT “A”
Plaintiff hereby incorporates Exhibit “A”, in support of the attached
Motion for Production of Prior Statements, which formally requests
that Defendant Santa Clara County Public Defender’s Office produce “any
and all statements made by Defendant Santa Clara County Office of the
Public Defender concerning this action or its subject matter”, and which
specifically informs the aforesaid defendants of their obligation to
produce these statements per Rule 26(b)(3)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
James Alan Bush471 East Julian StreetSan Jose, California 95112(408) [email protected]
Plaintiff in pro per
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
James Alan Bush,
Plaintiff,
v.
Sunnyvale Department ofPublic Safety, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 08-cv-01354 LHK
EXHIBIT “A”
FORMAL REQUEST TO DEFENDANT SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PRIOR STATEMENTS
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
27
EXHIBIT A PAGE 2 OF 3 08-cv-01354 LHK
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
27
REQUEST PAGE 1 OF 2 08-cv-01354 (PR) JF
PROPOUNDING PARTY: James Alan Bush
RESPONDING PARTY: Santa Clara County Counsel
SET NO.: 1
James Alan Bush, Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, makes the
following request pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Under Rule 34(b), you are required to serve, no later than
30 days after the date that this request was served on you, a written
response to this request, indicating whether you will comply with this
request.
James Alan Bush471 East Julian StreetSan Jose, California 95112(408) [email protected]
Plaintiff in pro per
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
James Alan Bush,
Plaintiff,
v.
Sunnyvale Department ofPublic Safety, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 08-cv-01354 LHK
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF PRIOR STATEMENT
[Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3), 34]
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
27
EXHIBIT A PAGE 3 OF 3 08-cv-01354 LHK
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
27
REQUEST PAGE 2 OF 2 08-cv-01354 (PR) JF
You are requested to produce any and all statements made by Defendant
Santa Clara County Office of the Public Defender concerning this action
or its subject matter, regardless of how obtained or maintained, and,
in particular, those made in the Superior Court of California, County of
Santa Clara, Criminal Division, in case number CC828198, and in regards
to this matter as pending against the aforesaid defendant and the service
of summons to the defendant by the plaintiff. Under Rule 26(b)(3)(C) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no privilege or work product protection
may be claimed for any prior statement of the defendant concerning the
action or its subject matter.
Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(3)(C), the term “statement” means and includes any
statement previously made that is:
1. A written statement signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the
person making it; or,
2. A contemporaneous stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other
recording, including a court transcription of it, that recites
substantially verbatim the person’s oral statement.
TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER FOR COMPLIANCE
The production of the requested statements will take place by e-mailing
James Alan Bush at [email protected], with the relevant files attached
to that e-mail in a format readable as PDF. The e-mail and attachments
should be sent no later than February 11th, 2012, at 5:00 P.M, and an
acknowledgment of receipt of the e-mail will be supplied as appropriate.
