Pratt v. Higgins
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-04228
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Pratt v. Higgins, Magistrate Judge Tse limited discovery requests and postponed initial disclosures until the initial case-management conference.
The order directly affects David Pratt and the defendants—3G Green Garden Group, Inc.; 3G Green Garden Group LLC; Emerald Harvest, Inc.; Robert C. Higgins; and Sharon Higgins—by limiting the document requests and setting the timing for initial disclosures.
What happened
In Pratt v. Higgins, the plaintiff served 633 requests for documents on the defendants. The court found the number of requests especially burdensome and oppressive because the case was still at an early stage.
The defendants do not have to respond further to the requests as written. The plaintiff may amend them, but must substantially reduce their number; additional requests may be served later if needed. The court also ordered the parties to exchange their initial disclosures on the date of the eventual initial case-management conference.
Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse issued the discovery order on January 18, 2023.
The detailed version
- Pratt v. Higgins · No. 4:22-cv-04228
- Haywood Gilliam
- Jan. 18, 2023
Background
David Pratt served 633 requests for production of documents (written requests for documents and other materials) on the defendants: 103 requests each on 3G Green Garden Group, Inc.; 3G Green Garden Group LLC; and Emerald Harvest, Inc.; and 162 requests each on Robert Higgins and Sharon Higgins. The opinion describes Robert Higgins as allegedly a co-manager of 3G Green Garden Group LLC doing business as Emerald Harvest, and Sharon Higgins as allegedly the other co-manager of 3G Green Garden Group LLC.
The parties had held a conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) in October 2022. The court had not yet held the initial case-management conference and had recently vacated it.
Rulings
The court found that the sheer volume of Pratt’s requests, particularly at this early stage, was unduly burdensome and oppressive. Pratt may amend the requests, but must substantially narrow them. If additional requests are warranted, Pratt may serve them as the case progresses. The defendants do not need to respond further to the requests as written.
The court also ordered the parties to exchange their initial disclosures on the date when the initial case-management conference is eventually held. The order states that the Rule 26(f) conference ordinarily triggers the deadline for initial disclosures, but that the circumstances here warranted using the later conference date.
Disposition
The court entered the discovery order and stated, “IT IS SO ORDERED.” Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse signed the order on January 18, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.