Opinion
1:21-cv-558-JLT-HBK
04-13-2022
JONATHAN SETH HARPER, Plaintiff, v. WELL PATH, LLC., ET. AL., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LIMITED SCOPE EXPEDITED DISCOVERY AND EX PARTE MOTION FOR COPIES
(DOC. NOS. 14, 21)
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's “motion for limited scope expedited discovery in support of motion for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction.” (Doc. No. 14). Plaintiff also seeks copies of his First Amended Complaint and his motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 21).
Background
Plaintiff, who is a pretrial detainee, initiated this action pro se by filing a prisoner civil right compliant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 1, 2021. (See generally Doc. Nos. 1). Plaintiff proceeds on his First Amended Complaint filed on March 14, 2022, which identifies approximately 18 Defendants, including but not limited to: the corporation that employs the medical staff at the county jail identified as Well Path, LLC; a medical doctor; correctional officers at the Kings County Jail; and county officials. (Doc. No. 18, “FAC”). The FAC generally complains about the provision of Plaintiff's medical care at the Kings County Jail. (See generally Id.).
A. Motion for Expedited Discovery
In Plaintiff's “motion for limited scope discovery in support of motion for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction, ” Plaintiff wants to obtain records from the company Global Tel*Link, who he states provided and serviced tablets to Kings County Jail prior to and during the time Defendant Well Path, LLC. provided medical care to inmates. (Doc. No. 14 at 15). Plaintiff states that he filed medical-related inmate grievances via Global Tel*Link's tablets and has no way to obtain copies of the grievances absent a subpoena to this third-party. (Id. at 3).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d), a party “may not seek discovery from any source” prior to the conference required by Rule 26(f). The parties' conference must take place at least 21 days before the Initial Case Management Conference. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d), (f). For discovery to occur earlier, a “good cause” standard applies. See generally Semitool Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273 (N.D. Cal. April 19, 2002); see also Hall v. Mims, 2012 WL 1498893, *2 (E.D. Cal. April 27, 2012); Fernandez v. Metropolitan Corr. Center, 2021 WL 1400854 (S.D. Cal. April 13, 2021). “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Hall, 2012 WL 1498893, *2 (citing Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276). The discovery sought must be relevant and good cause must exist to provide the discovery on an expedited basis. Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276.
Expedited discovery may be appropriate in some cases seeking injunctive relief, e.g. copyright or patent infringement claims or with motions challenging personal jurisdiction. (Id.) (citations omitted). Courts have broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. Fernandez, 2021 WL 1400854, *2. In pro se cases, the Ninth Circuit often permits early discovery so plaintiffs can ascertain the identity of John Doe defendants. Id. (citing Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999)(other citations omitted)).
Here, the Court finds expedited discovery is not warranted. Plaintiff states that he wishes to engage in early discovery to obtain copies of his medical-related grievances, but he attaches summaries of the grievances to his motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. (See e.g. Doc. No. 13 at 35-52). Admittedly, the FAC challenges the provision of medical care to Plaintiff at the county facility, but Plaintiff has not shown why he needs copies of his inmate grievances on an expedited basis. See also Hall, 2012 WL 1498893 *3-*4 (denying plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery where inmate health and safety involved).
By separate order the undersigned addresses Plaintiff s pending motions for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.
B. Motion for Copies
Next, Plaintiff seeks copies of both his FAC and his motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary junction. (Doc. No. 21). Plaintiff does not specify which motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction he requires copied. Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction in December 2021 and another one in March 2022. Plaintiff states his ability to make copies was delayed by one week. (Id. at 2). He requests these copies for “purposes of general reference in litigation.” (Id.).
Neither Plaintiff's pro se status nor his prisoner status entitle him to receive complimentary copies. Blair v. CDCR, 2018 WL 1959532, at *6 n. 2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2018). Having reviewed the docket, the Court notes it previously provided Plaintiff a “one-time courtesy copy” of a motion that was stricken by the Court. (Doc. No. 15). Plaintiff is not currently under any Court-ordered deadline at this time. Consequently, the Court denies Plaintiff's request for copies of these documents.
Consistent with statute, the Clerk will provide copies of documents and the docket sheet at $0.50 per page. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914. Checks in the exact amount are payable to “Clerk, USDC” Plaintiff's FAC is 26 pages in length and his motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction are 52 and 14 pages in length, respectively. Thus, to the extent Plaintiff wishes to obtain copies of the requested documents he should forward a check in the amount of $46.00 to the Clerk if he wishes to obtain copies of these pleadings.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff'sex parte motion for copies of his First Amended Complaint and his motionsfor a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 21) is DENIED.