ELMER MORENO MENDOZA, Plaintiff, v. CAPTAIN AGUILAR, Defendant Case No. 16-cv-05529 EDL (PR) United States District Court, N.D. California Filed May 18, 2017 LaPorte, Elizabeth D., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER DENYING MOTIONS REGARDING DISCOVERY; GRANTING MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION *1 Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.[1] Plaintiff has filed two motions regarding discovery. Defendant has filed a second motion for an extension of time within which to file a dispositive motion. The Court resolves each motion in turn. I. Discovery motions On March 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery and production of documents. Dkt. No. 20. In the motion, Plaintiff discusses a pending criminal charge against him, and requests an order from the Court compelling Defendant to produce discovery, requiring non-parties to appear for depositions, and directing Defendant to pay attorney's fees. On April 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “motion for discovery,” which appears to be a courtesy copy to the Court of his notice to Defendant to request discovery. Dkt. No. 28. To the extent the copy was intended to be a motion, both motions are denied. The Court generally is not involved in the discovery process and only becomes involved when there is a dispute between the parties about discovery responses. Discovery requests and responses normally are exchanged between the parties without any copy sent to the court. Only when the parties have a discovery dispute that they cannot resolve among themselves should the parties even consider asking the Court to intervene in the discovery process. The Court does not have enough time or resources to oversee all discovery, and therefore requires that the parties present to it only their very specific disagreements. To promote the goal of addressing only very specific disagreements (rather than becoming an overseer of all discovery), the Court requires that the parties meet and confer to try to resolve their disagreements before seeking court intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); N.D. Cal. Local Rule 37. Where, as here, one of the parties is a prisoner, the Court does not require in-person meetings and instead allows the prisoner and defense counsel to meet and confer by telephone or exchange of letters. Although the format of the meet-and-confer process changes, the substance of the rule remains the same: the parties must engage in a good faith effort to meet and confer before seeking Court intervention in any discovery dispute. Here, there is no indication that Plaintiff has participated in the meet and confer process. Going forward, and as explained in the preceding paragraph, Plaintiff does not need to and should not be filing discovery requests with the Court. All discovery requests should be sent directly to defense counsel without any involvement of the Court. Plaintiff also requests the Court to order non-parties to submit to a deposition. The scope of discovery in civil cases is limited to matters “relevant to any party's claim or defense.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery may be limited further by Court order if “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted....” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Plaintiff has failed to specify why the depositions of these non-parties are necessary, how the information sought relates to issues in this case, or why it cannot be obtained by less burdensome means. The relevance of these witnesses, if any, is not obvious from the record in this case. In addition, should Plaintiff subpoena these witnesses for deposition, Plaintiff is cautioned that he “must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to [a] subpoena.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1). The failure to comply may result in sanctions. Id. *2 Plaintiff has also requested attorney's fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4). The Court presumes that Plaintiff intended to cite to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5), which allows for payment of reasonable attorney's fees once a motion to compel is granted. However, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Local Rules, which require such requests for attorney's fees to be noticed and separately filed. See N.D. Cal. Local Rule 37-4. More importantly, “Rule 37 does not empower the district court to award attorney fees to a pro se litigant.” Pickholtz v. Rainbow Technologies, Inc., 284 F.3d 1365, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motions regarding discovery are denied without prejudice. II. Motion for an extension of time Defendant's dispositive motion was initially due on February 13, 2017. On February 16, 2017, the Court granted Defendant an extension of time within which to file a dispositive motion until May 1, 2017. Defendant has filed a second motion for an extension of time to file a dispositive motion on or before June 30, 2017. Defendant's motion is granted. However, Defendant is advised that no further requests for an extension of time will be granted absent a showing of exigent circumstances. CONCLUSION Plaintiff's motions regarding discovery are DENIED. Defendant's motion for an extension of time within which to file a dispositive motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff's opposition shall be due twenty-eight days after Defendant files his motion. Defendant's reply is due fourteen days thereafter. IT IS SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] Both parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction.