Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ncmd;;1:16-cv-00396_de93> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 7 of
7
with 100 items per page.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-00396_de93 RegisterActionDate "2017-07-28" @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-00396_de93 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER denying 51 Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant C1A48D6 and 53 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. As to 53 Motion, (1) Plaintiff lacks entitlement to counsel in this civil case, (2) the Court lacks funds to pay an attorney to represent Plaintiff, and (3) Plaintiff has not shown exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel (in particular, Plaintiff has not shown that he lacks the capacity to present any colorable claim, as he has set forth his claim in detailed fashion in 1 Complaint, which consists of 23 pages with another 99 pages of attached exhibits). As to 51 Motion, Defendant C1A48D6 (through counsel) has represented that she does not possess any of the documents referenced in Request for Production No. 1 and Plaintiff has not shown that he conferred in good faith with Defendant regarding Request for Production No. 2. The Court cannot order Defendant C1A48D6 to produce documents she does not possess and it appears that the documents at issue in Request for Production No. 1 are public records which Plaintiff has an equal ability to obtain. The Court therefore will order no relief as to Request for Production No. 1. Nor will the Court order any relief as to Request for Production No. 2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 37.1(a) required Plaintiff to consult with counsel for Defendant C1A48D6 in good faith before seeking court action, but [52-3] Letter that Plaintiff submitted to show consultation with counsel for Defendant C1A48D6 addresses only Request for Production No. 1, not Request for Production No. 2. Further, Request for Production No. 2 appears to demand that Defendant C1A48D6 create a document (i.e., a "list"), but Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 only contemplates production of pre-existing documents in the possession, custody, or control of another party. As a final matter, Defendant C1A48D6 has not requested expense-shifting under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(B) and the Court concludes that, under the circumstances, expense-shifting would not serve the interests of justice. Issued by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 07/28/2017. (AULD, L.) (Entered: 07/28/2017)" @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-00396_de93 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-00396_de93 OntologyLabel order @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-00396_de93 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-00396_de0 @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-00396_de93 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-00396_de86 @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-00396_de93 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-00396_de89 @default.