Anderson
Anderson v. California Department of Correction
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ROBERT D. ANDERSON, Case No. 20-cv-04368-HSG
Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
v. Re: Dkt. No. 25 M. MCGALLON, et al., Defendants.
12 Plaintiff has filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. Dkt. No. 25. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice to re-filing after he complies with the meet-and-confer requirement set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and N.D. Cal. L. R. 37-1(a). Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) requires that a motion to compel discovery “include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Local Rule 37-1(a) provides that the Court will not entertain a request or a motion to resolve a discovery dispute unless, pursuant to Fed. R.…