(PC) Baker v. Lynch

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 8, 20242:19-cv-02617California4,281 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TIMOTHY RAY BAKER, No. 2:19-CV-2617-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. ORDER J. HOWARD, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Defendants’ unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff to provide responses to written discovery and to attend his deposition. See ECF No. 66. The purpose of discovery is to "remove surprise from trial preparation so the parties can obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute." United States v. Chapman Univ., 245 F.R.D. 646, 648 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (quotation and citation omitted). Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure offers guidance on the scope of discovery permitted: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged information that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering…

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.