Acharya

(PC) Gomez v. Acharya

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 8, 20202:17-cv-02407California963 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EDWARD GOMEZ, No. 2:17-cv-2407 MCE CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER ACHARYA, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has filed a motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 49) and a pretrial statement (ECF No. 54). I. Motion to Compel The scope of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) is broad. Discovery may be obtained as to “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. The court, however, may limit discovery if it is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;” or if the party who seeks discovery “has had…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.