Ernest Thomas v. Jane Doe

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Ernest Thomas’s renewed motion to compel production of surveillance and body-camera footage as premature. The court explained that discovery generally does not begin until the complaint has been screened, defendants have been served and appeared, and a scheduling order is entered; it suggested that Thomas request preservation of the footage directly from CDCR.

Holdings

1. A motion to compel discovery is premature when no defendant has been served or appeared and the Court has not issued a discovery and scheduling order; discovery ordinarily begins only after screening, service, and an answer.
2. Discovery in this federal action is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rather than CDCR regulations.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Court should compel production of CDCR surveillance and body-camera footage before any defendant had been served or appeared.
2. Whether Plaintiff could rely on CDCR regulations rather than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to obtain the requested material.

Disposition

other