Floyd v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, LLC.

Background

Michael Devin Floyd, representing himself, sued 24 Hour Fitness USA under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging civil-rights violations. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang for discovery matters.

Floyd filed three discovery letter briefs concerning six requests. He sought surveillance video from a 24 Hour Fitness parking lot and facility, names and contact information for employees and managers, information about alleged victims, and information about employees working on specified dates. Floyd asked the court to require the defendant to provide the discovery before the case-management conference.

Court’s Analysis

The court found all three letter briefs deficient. Two were filed unilaterally even though Judge Edward M. Chen’s standing order required discovery-relief requests to be made in a joint letter brief. The court also found that the filings did not comply with applicable meet-and-confer requirements. The court noted that self-represented litigants must still follow court rules.

The court independently found the discovery requests premature under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1). When Floyd sent the requests, the parties had not yet held the required Rule 26(f) conference. The court also found that Floyd had not shown good cause for early or expedited discovery; his stated reason was that he wanted the materials before the case-management conference.

The court explained that Rule 26 ordinarily requires the parties to discuss a discovery plan at the Rule 26(f) conference before formal discovery begins. It also described initial disclosures that generally must be exchanged after that conference, including information about people likely to have discoverable information and documents or other materials that may support a party’s claims or defenses.

Disposition

The court denied without prejudice the requests for relief in Floyd’s three discovery letter briefs. The order stated that a request to require 24 Hour Fitness USA to respond to discovery sent before the Rule 26(f) conference could be renewed, if appropriate, after the fact-discovery period properly began. The court also ordered the parties to review and follow Judge Kang’s discovery standing order, especially its provisions concerning discovery disputes, and provided notice of resources for self-represented litigants.