Page 1

1

3

James Alan Bush 471 East Julian Street San Jose, California 95112 (408) 791-4866 theoknock@yahoo.com

4

Plaintiff in pro per

2

5 6 7 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11 12 13

James Alan Bush,

Case No. 08-cv-01354 LHK

14

Plaintiff,

PLAINTIFF’S REPORT ON DISCOVERY

15

v.

16

Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety, et al.,

17 18

Defendants.

REPORT ON DISCOVERY

19 20

Judge Howard R. Lloyd

In its Standing Order re Civil Discovery Disputes, the Court required

21

that the parties report, in detail, on the status of discovery, and, in

22

particular, to identify any unresolved issues concerning a discovery

23

request. In response to this order, the plaintiff states:

24

Discovery Request in Issue

25

In addition to phone calls, e-mails, and letters, plaintiff served

26

a formal request for production of prior statements on Defendant Santa

27

Clara County Public Defender’s Office for any and all statements concerning REPORT

PAGE 1 OF 4

08-cv-01354 (PR) JF


1

the pendency of this action and its particulars of the service of

2

summons and complaint by the plaintiff that were made by the defendant

3

as representative counsel for the plaintiff in in the Superior Court

4

of California, County of Santa Clara, Criminal Division, in case number

5

CC828198; however, the defendant has refused, and continues to refuse,

6

to produce these statements whatsoever, even though, in his request and

7

other correspondence, the plaintiff explained the time-sensitive nature of

8

this request, and specifically informed the defendant and counsel of their

9

obligation under the provisions of Rules 26(b)(3)(C) and 34 of the Federal

10

Rules of Civil Procedure to produce these statements within 30 days (see

11

the attached exhibit for an exact copy of the discovery request in issue).

12

Plaintiff’s Compliance with Standing Order Requirements

13

In order to obtain the requested discovery without court intervention,

14

and to otherwise meet his obligation per the standing order to diligently

15

strive to resolve this dispute, the plaintiff took these specific steps:

16

a. On December 20th, 2011, the plaintiff requested by e-mail to

17

counsel for the defendant for a stipulation to the fact that a

18

notice of this lawsuit and a request for a waiver of service of

19

summons was received by the defendant, and, in particular, that the

20

defendant stated on record in a state court that service of process

21

was made on them by the plaintiff.

22

b. On January 10th, 2012, the plaintiff clarified the relevance and

23

time-sensitive nature of the request by letter, by explaining that

24

the information was critical to the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the

25

order of dismissal against the defendant for the purported failure

26

of the plaintiff to serve process, and that the date of the hearing

27

of this motion was imminent. REPORT

PAGE 2 OF 4

08-cv-01354 (PR) JF


1

c. On January 12th, 2012, a formal request for the production of

2

prior statements was served on the defendant through its counsel,

3

which advised the defendant that a response was required within

4

30 days of their receipt of this request per Rule 34, and that per

5

Rule 26(b)(3)(C), no privilege or work product protection could be

6

claimed.

7

d. Two follow-up phone calls were made after each attempt to obtain

8 9

the requested information. Plaintiff was unable to comply with the meet-and-confer requirement

10

of the standing order because the defendant failed to respond whatsoever

11

to his request for discovery; however, even though the standing order

12

prohibits the Court from entertaining a motion to resolve a discovery

13

dispute unless the parties have previously conferred for the purpose

14

of attempting to resolve said dispute, Civil Local Rule 37-1(a) allows

15

the Court to issue an order compelling discovery, and even to impose

16

sanctions, if the dispute is caused by the refusal and/or failure of the

17

defendant to confer [see ND Cal Civ LR 37-1(a)].

18 19

For the same reason, the plaintiff was unable to file this report jointly.

20

Timeliness of Discovery Report

21

This report is timely filed, in that it contains all of the claims made

22

in the motion to compel discovery that serves as the basis of this report,

23

which was filed within seven court days after the date a response to the

24

discovery request was due, as required by Civil Local Rule 26-2 [see

25

ND Cal Civ LR 26-2].

26

Request for Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions

27

The defendant’s refusal to comply with the plaintiff’s discovery REPORT

PAGE 3 OF 4

08-cv-01354 (PR) JF


1

request is unjustified, especially considering that the information

2

requested is time-sensitive, and given the amount of time since the first

3

request was first made, i.e., December 20th, 2011; moreoever, the defendant

4

has not filed any protective order under Rule 26(c), thereby precluding the

5

excuse that the discovery sought is objectionable, and per Rule 26(b)(3)(C),

6

cannot claim privilege or work product protection for any prior statement

7

made concerning the action or its subject matter.

8

Accordingly, the request of the Court is for permission to file, and

9

for the consideration of, the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, made

10

pursuant to Rule 37(a)(3)(A).

11

Dated: February 24th, 2012

12

By: X

13

James Alan Bush Plaintiff in pro per

14

//

15

//

16

//

17

//

18

//

19

//

20

//

21

//

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

// REPORT

PAGE 4 OF 4

08-cv-01354 (PR) JF


1

3

James Alan Bush 471 East Julian Street San Jose, California 95112 (408) 791-4866 theoknock@yahoo.com

4

Plaintiff in pro per

2

5 6 7 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11 12 13

James Alan Bush,

Case No. 08-cv-01354 LHK

14

Plaintiff,

EXHIBIT “A”

15

v.

16

Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety, et al.,

FORMAL REQUEST TO DEFENDANT SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PRIOR STATEMENTS

17 18

Defendants.

19

EXHIBIT “A”

20

Plaintiff hereby incorporates Exhibit “A”, in support of the attached

21

Motion for Production of Prior Statements, which formally requests

22

that Defendant Santa Clara County Public Defender’s Office produce “any

23

and all statements made by Defendant Santa Clara County Office of the

24

Public Defender concerning this action or its subject matter”, and which

25

specifically informs the aforesaid defendants of their obligation to

26

produce these statements per Rule 26(b)(3)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil

27

Procedure. EXHIBIT A

PAGE 1 OF 3

08-cv-01354 LHK


1 2 3 4

1

3

James Alan Bush 471 East Julian Street San Jose, California 95112 (408) 791-4866 theoknock@yahoo.com

4

Plaintiff in pro per

2

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

12

12 13

13 14

16

15

17

Case No. 08-cv-01354 LHK

Plaintiff,

15

14

16

James Alan Bush,

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF PRIOR STATEMENT

v. Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety, et al.,

[Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3), 34]

Defendants.

18 19

PROPOUNDING PARTY:

James Alan Bush

18

20

RESPONDING PARTY:

Santa Clara County Counsel

21

SET NO.:

1

19

22

20

23

following request pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil

24

Procedure. Under Rule 34(b), you are required to serve, no later than

25

30 days after the date that this request was served on you, a written

26

response to this request, indicating whether you will comply with this

27

request.

17

21 22 23 24

James Alan Bush, Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, makes the

REQUEST

PAGE 1 OF 2

08-cv-01354 (PR) JF

25 26 27 EXHIBIT A

PAGE 2 OF 3

08-cv-01354 LHK


1 2

1

You are requested to produce any and all statements made by Defendant

2

Santa Clara County Office of the Public Defender concerning this action

3

or its subject matter, regardless of how obtained or maintained, and,

4

in particular, those made in the Superior Court of California, County of

5

5

Santa Clara, Criminal Division, in case number CC828198, and in regards

6

6

to this matter as pending against the aforesaid defendant and the service

7

7

of summons to the defendant by the plaintiff. Under Rule 26(b)(3)(C) of the

8

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no privilege or work product protection

9

may be claimed for any prior statement of the defendant concerning the

3 4

8 9

10

10

11

11

12

statement previously made that is:

13

1. A written statement signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the

12 13

action or its subject matter. Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(3)(C), the term “statement” means and includes any

14

person making it; or,

15

2. A contemporaneous stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other

14

16

recording, including a court transcription of it, that recites

15

17

substantially verbatim the person’s oral statement.

16 17

TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER FOR COMPLIANCE

18 19

The production of the requested statements will take place by e-mailing

18

20

James Alan Bush at theoknock@yahoo.com, with the relevant files attached

21

to that e-mail in a format readable as PDF. The e-mail and attachments

19

22

should be sent no later than February 11th, 2012, at 5:00 P.M, and an

20

23

acknowledgment of receipt of the e-mail will be supplied as appropriate.

24

Dated: January 11th, 2012

21 22 23 24

25

By: X

26

James Alan Bush Plaintiff in pro per

27

// REQUEST

PAGE 2 OF 2

08-cv-01354 (PR) JF

25 26 27 EXHIBIT A

PAGE 3 OF 3

08-cv-01354 LHK

Report on Discovery  

Had to do this, in order to get heard on the motion to compel discovery, which I posted earlier this week.

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you