James M. Johnson v. United States of America
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jill L. Burkhardt (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion for early discovery in a civil rights action against the United States. The court denied the motion because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for expedited discovery before the case management conference.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery (ECF No. 4) is denied.“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery. (ECF No. 4.)” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard for early discovery, which requires a showing that the need for expedited discovery outweighs prejudice to the responding party. The order notes that the plaintiff requested 'all discovery material' without justification, explanation of need, or consideration of prejudice. Furthermore, the procedural posture (no answer, no CMC, no discovery schedule) supports the denial under local rules and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), which generally prohibits discovery before the Rule 16 conference. The denial is supported by the cited authorities and the lack of factual basis in the motion. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard for early discovery (good cause) and cites relevant local rules and case law establishing the typical discovery timeline. The court's reasoning that the plaintiff failed to meet this standard because the motion was overly broad ('all discovery material') and lacked specific justification or analysis of prejudice is legally sufficient. The order does not skip any critical arguments or authorities necessary to resolve the motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 JAMES M. JOHNSON, Case No.: 26-cv-03584-BJC-JLB Plaintiff, 14 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S v. 15 MOTION FOR DISCOVERY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 16 Defendant. 17 [ECF No. 4] 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff asks 20 the Court for “all discovery material” relating to this case. (Id.) For the reasons set forth 21 below, the Court DENIES the Motion. 22 On June 12, 2026, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action against the 23 United States of America (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that while in the 24 custody of the Bureau of Prisons he was stabbed and sustained severe injuries including a 25 collapsed lung and broken ribs. (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff alleges he was denied medical care 26 by Defendant which significantly worsened his condition and led to complications in 27 treatment. (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that he did not receive the proper follow-up 28 care, which resulted in an infection. (Id. at 6.) 1 On August 24, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Early Discovery for access to “all 2 discovery material relating to [the] case.” (ECF No. 4.) As of the date of this order, 3 Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis has not been ruled upon, 4 Defendant has not filed a responsive pleading to the Complaint, Defendant has not filed an 5 opposition to Plaintiff’s expedited discovery request, and neither an Early Neutral 6 Evaluation Conference nor a Case Management Conference have been held. The Court 7 has not yet instructed the parties on Rule 26 compliance and has not issued a discovery 8 schedule. 9 The customary timeline for civil cases in this district is: 10 [t]he plaintiff files a complaint. The defendant files an answer. The Court sets an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference (“ENE”). If the parties do not 11 reach settlement at the ENE, the Court sets a Case Management Conference 12 (“CMC”) and instructs the parties on Rule 26 compliance. Following the CMC, the Court issues a Scheduling Order regulating the pretrial and 13 discovery schedule. Generally, a party may not serve discovery before the 14 CMC. 15 Olivas v. United States, No. 11cv2606-WQH (WMc), 2013 WL 1222113, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 16 Mar. 25, 2013). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 16 (setting forth the requirements for 17 management of a case); CivLR 16.1.c.1 (providing that an ENE is to be held within 45 18 days of the filing of the answer in a regular case.). 19 In deciding whether to allow early discovery, courts apply a good cause standard. 20 Good cause exists where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the 21 administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party. See, e.g., Arista 22 Records, LLC v. Does 1-43, No. 07cv2357-LAB (POR), 2007 WL 4538697 at *1 (S.D. 23 Cal. Dec. 20, 2007). 24 Here, Plaintiff has provided no justification for the early discovery request, 25 requesting “all discovery material relating to [the] case,” without further explanation. 26 (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff has not explained why expedited discovery is needed and has not 27 elaborated on whether this request will cause prejudice to Defendant. In sum, Plaintiff has 28 not demonstrated the requisite good cause in support of his request. I 2 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery. (ECF No. 4.) 3 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: September 4, 2026 - n. Jill L. Burkhardt 6 ited States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28