Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sergio Martinez v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.

November 8, 2011

SERGIO MARTINEZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO., AS TRUSTEE FOR AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE, INC., DEFENDANT.



ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Notice of Petition and Petition for Pre-Litigation Discovery (Doc. No. 3). The plaintiff, who is representing himself, has asked the Court to permit discovery before the parties hold their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(f) conference and make their initial Rule 26 disclosures.

Rule 26 encourages cooperation between the parties and a reduction in the cost of discovery. Among other things, the Rule requires the parties to confer at the beginning of the case and discuss important discovery issues including the likely scope of discovery, the preservation of discoverable information, how they will deal with electronically stored information, issues of privilege and the development of a proposed discovery plan. Rule 26(d) prohibits the parties from engaging in discovery until after they have conferred as required by Rule 26(f) except; (1) in certain exempt proceedings; (2) when authorized by the Rules; or (3) pursuant to Court order. The plaintiff does not contend that either of the first two exceptions applies and he has not shown good cause why the Court should otherwise deviate from the requirements of Rule 26 in this lawsuit.

The motion is also insufficient because it does not include a Local Rule 3.01(g) certificate that before plaintiff filed the motion he conferred with his opponent in a good faith attempt to resolve the issues raised by the motion.

Finally, the Court reviewed the docket and did not find an entry for the issuance of a summons to the defendant which may explain why the defense has not filed a paper in response to the motion. If the plaintiff has not caused a summons to be issued and served upon the defendant then he is warned that Rule 4(m) states in part "[i]f a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court--on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff--must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time."

For these reasons, the motion (Doc. 9) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Copy to Sergio Martinez, Plaintiff

20111108

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.