Bonazza v. MUFG Bank, Ltd.

Background

The court had previously ordered that any document Michael Alan Bonazza filed must cite an authority permitting the filing. The listed authorities included a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, a Northern District of California Civil Local Rule, or a court order. The order identified docket entry 66 as the source of this requirement.

Bonazza filed docket entry 73, titled “Motion to Depose.” The court found that the filing did not cite a rule or court order authorizing it and also identified several procedural problems.

Reasons for striking the filing

First, the court said it did not appear that the parties had held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). That conference precedes the opening of discovery under Rule 26(d), so the court concluded that discovery had not yet opened.

Second, if the filing was intended to serve discovery on a defendant, the court said it should have been served on the opposing party rather than filed with the court. The court explained that discovery is exchanged between the parties and generally is not filed with the court unless it is used in the proceeding or the court orders filing.

Third, to the extent the filing concerned a discovery dispute, the court’s local rules required the parties to confer under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 before asking the court to resolve the dispute. The court found no indication that the parties had attempted to resolve the dispute without court intervention.

Disposition

The court ordered: “docket no. 73 is STRICKEN.” The opinion does not state that the court decided the underlying merits of any claim or discovery request.