1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

James Alan Bush 471 East Julian Street San Jose, California 95112 (408) 791-4866 theoknock@yahoo.com Plaintiff in pro per

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

James Alan Bush, Plaintiff, v. Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 08-cv-01354 LHK PLAINTIFFS REPORT ON DISCOVERY

Judge Howard R. Lloyd REPORT ON DISCOVERY

In its Standing Order re Civil Discovery Disputes, the Court required that the parties report, in detail, on the status of discovery, and, in particular, to identify any unresolved issues concerning a discovery request. In response to this order, the plaintiff states: Discovery Request in Issue In addition to phone calls, e-mails, and letters, plaintiff served a formal request for production of prior statements on Defendant Santa Clara County Public Defenders Office for any and all statements concerning REPORT PAGE 1 OF 4 08-cv-01354 (PR) JF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

the pendency of this action and its particulars of the service of summons and complaint by the plaintiff that were made by the defendant as representative counsel for the plaintiff in in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Criminal Division, in case number CC828198; however, the defendant has refused, and continues to refuse, to produce these statements whatsoever, even though, in his request and other correspondence, the plaintiff explained the time-sensitive nature of this request, and specifically informed the defendant and counsel of their obligation under the provisions of Rules 26(b) (C) and 34 of the Federal (3) Rules of Civil Procedure to produce these statements within 30 days (see the attached exhibit for an exact copy of the discovery request in issue). Plaintiffs Compliance with Standing Order Requirements In order to obtain the requested discovery without court intervention, and to otherwise meet his obligation per the standing order to diligently strive to resolve this dispute, the plaintiff took these specific steps: a. On December 20th, 2011, the plaintiff requested by e-mail to counsel for the defendant for a stipulation to the fact that a notice of this lawsuit and a request for a waiver of service of summons was received by the defendant, and, in particular, that the defendant stated on record in a state court that service of process was made on them by the plaintiff. b. On January 10th, 2012, the plaintiff clarified the relevance and time-sensitive nature of the request by letter, by explaining that the information was critical to the plaintiffs motion to vacate the order of dismissal against the defendant for the purported failure of the plaintiff to serve process, and that the date of the hearing of this motion was imminent. REPORT PAGE 2 OF 4 08-cv-01354 (PR) JF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

c. On January 12th, 2012, a formal request for the production of prior statements was served on the defendant through its counsel, which advised the defendant that a response was required within 30 days of their receipt of this request per Rule 34, and that per Rule 26(b) (C), no privilege or work product protection could be (3) claimed. d. Two follow-up phone calls were made after each attempt to obtain the requested information. Plaintiff was unable to comply with the meet-and-confer requirement of the standing order because the defendant failed to respond whatsoever to his request for discovery; however, even though the standing order prohibits the Court from entertaining a motion to resolve a discovery dispute unless the parties have previously conferred for the purpose of attempting to resolve said dispute, Civil Local Rule 37-1(a) allows the Court to issue an order compelling discovery, and even to impose sanctions, if the dispute is caused by the refusal and/or failure of the defendant to confer [see ND Cal Civ LR 37-1(a) ]. For the same reason, the plaintiff was unable to file this report jointly. Timeliness of Discovery Report This report is timely filed, in that it contains all of the claims made in the motion to compel discovery that serves as the basis of this report, which was filed within seven court days after the date a response to the discovery request was due, as required by Civil Local Rule 26-2 [see ND Cal Civ LR 26-2]. Request for Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions The defendants refusal to comply with the plaintiffs discovery REPORT PAGE 3 OF 4 08-cv-01354 (PR) JF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

request is unjustified, especially considering that the information requested is time-sensitive, and given the amount of time since the first request was first made, i.e., December 20th, 2011; moreoever, the defendant has not filed any protective order under Rule 26(c), thereby precluding the excuse that the discovery sought is objectionable, and per Rule 26(b) (C), (3) cannot claim privilege or work product protection for any prior statement made concerning the action or its subject matter. Accordingly, the request of the Court is for permission to file, and for the consideration of, the plaintiffs motion to compel discovery, made pursuant to Rule 37(a) (A). (3) Dated: February 24th, 2012 By: X James Alan Bush Plaintiff in pro per // // // // // // // // // // // // // // REPORT PAGE 4 OF 4 08-cv-01354 (PR) JF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

James Alan Bush 471 East Julian Street San Jose, California 95112 (408) 791-4866 theoknock@yahoo.com Plaintiff in pro per

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

James Alan Bush, Plaintiff, v. Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 08-cv-01354 LHK EXHIBIT A FORMAL REQUEST TO DEFENDANT SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PRIOR STATEMENTS

EXHIBIT A Plaintiff hereby incorporates Exhibit A, in support of the attached Motion for Production of Prior Statements, which formally requests that Defendant Santa Clara County Public Defenders Office produce any and all statements made by Defendant Santa Clara County Office of the Public Defender concerning this action or its subject matter, and which specifically informs the aforesaid defendants of their obligation to produce these statements per Rule 26(b) (C) of the Federal Rules of Civil (3) Procedure. EXHIBIT A PAGE 1 OF 3 08-cv-01354 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXHIBIT A PAGE 2 OF 3 08-cv-01354 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 v. Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety, et al., Defendants. PROPOUNDING PARTY: RESPONDING PARTY: SET NO.: James Alan Bush Santa Clara County Counsel 1 James Alan Bush, Plaintiff, Case No. 08-cv-01354 LHK REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF PRIOR STATEMENT [Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3), 34] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION James Alan Bush 471 East Julian Street San Jose, California 95112 (408) 791-4866 theoknock@yahoo.com Plaintiff in pro per

James Alan Bush, Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, makes the following request pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 34(b), you are required to serve, no later than 30 days after the date that this request was served on you, a written response to this request, indicating whether you will comply with this request. REQUEST PAGE 1 OF 2 08-cv-01354 (PR) JF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXHIBIT A PAGE 3 OF 3 08-cv-01354 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 REQUEST PAGE 2 OF 2 You are requested to produce any and all statements made by Defendant Santa Clara County Office of the Public Defender concerning this action or its subject matter, regardless of how obtained or maintained, and, in particular, those made in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Criminal Division, in case number CC828198, and in regards to this matter as pending against the aforesaid defendant and the service of summons to the defendant by the plaintiff. Under Rule 26(b) (C) of the (3) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no privilege or work product protection may be claimed for any prior statement of the defendant concerning the action or its subject matter. Pursuant to Rule 26(b) (C), the term statement means and includes any (3) statement previously made that is: 1. A written statement signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the person making it; or, 2. A contemporaneous stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording, including a court transcription of it, that recites substantially verbatim the persons oral statement. TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER FOR COMPLIANCE The production of the requested statements will take place by e-mailing James Alan Bush at theoknock@yahoo.com, with the relevant files attached to that e-mail in a format readable as PDF. The e-mail and attachments should be sent no later than February 11th, 2012, at 5:00 P.M, and an acknowledgment of receipt of the e-mail will be supplied as appropriate. Dated: January 11th, 2012 By: X James Alan Bush Plaintiff in pro per // 08-cv-01354 (PR) JF