(PS) Creel v. Sacramento County Sheriff Dept. et al

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
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHAD MICHAEL CREEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPUTY ANDREW TITHERINGTON,
Defendant.
No. 2:24-cv-01533-TLN-SCR
ORDER
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant
to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s second
motion to strike affirmative defenses (ECF No. 93). Plaintiff has also filed a Notice and Request
to Streamline Discovery (“Notice”) (ECF No. 64). The motion to strike is STRICKEN and the
Notice seeks no affirmative relief from the Court.
Plaintiff previously filed a motion to strike affirmative defenses (ECF No. 68), which the
Court granted in part. ECF No. 91. Defendant then filed an amended answer, which asserts only
seven affirmative defenses. ECF No. 92. As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff’s motion to strike
fails to comply with the Local Rules and is difficult to read due to this non-compliance. Local
Rule 130(c) requires documents filed with the Court to be double-spaced. A double-spaced
document should contain roughly 28 lines per page. Plaintiff’s filing contains more than 50 lines
per page, and uses a small font size. Plaintiff has previously been cautioned about filing
documents that exceed the 20-page limit set in this Court’s Civil Standing Order. ECF No. 77.
Case 2:24-cv-01533-TLN-SCR Document 96 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 3

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
28
2
Plaintiff has also been previously cautioned about filing documents that are not double-spaced.
See ECF No. 86 (“Plaintiff’s status report fails to comply with Local Rule 130(c), which requires
documents submitted to the Court to be double-spaced. Further such non-compliant filings may
be stricken.”). Plaintiff cannot avoid the Court’s page limits by submitting documents that are
single-spaced and utilize a small font. Plaintiff shall use at least a 12-point font in future filings.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to strike is STRICKEN. The Court will allow Plaintiff ten days
to file a motion to strike, if he so chooses to refile, that complies with the Local Rules, however,
Plaintiff is reminded that motions to strike are “disfavored and infrequently granted.” Bakersfield
Pipe & Supply v. Cornerstone Valve, LLC, 2015 WL 4496349, *2 (E.D. Cal. July 23, 2015).
Plaintiff’s Notice is captioned as a “Notice of Cooperation, Present Waiver of Plaintiff-
Initiated Discovery and Depositions, Consent to Electronic Service, and Request to Streamline
Discovery Procedure.” ECF No. 94. The Notice does not seek to modify the discovery schedule
set in the Court’s order. See ECF No. 94 at 11 (requesting the Court “preserve the existing
Scheduling Order except to the extent the Court expressly modifies it). Plaintiff also states:
“Neither this notice nor any order recognizing it alters the existing Scheduling Order unless the
Court expressly says otherwise.” Id. at 9. The Notice states that Plaintiff will cooperate with
discovery and that he does not intend at this time to serve written discovery or take depositions.
Plaintiff asks that the Court recognize or acknowledge the Notice, which this Order does. The
parties need not make filings informing the Court as to how they plan to conduct discovery. If
modification of the Scheduling Order is sought, a party should file an appropriate motion
requesting such relief and demonstrating good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may
be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.”).
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 93) is STRICKEN.
2. 	Plaintiff is not required to re-file the motion to strike, however, if he chooses to do so
the motion must comply with the Local Rules and must be filed within 10 days of the
date of this Order;
3. 	Plaintiff’s Notice (ECF No. 94) seeks no specific affirmative relief from the Court,
Case 2:24-cv-01533-TLN-SCR Document 96 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 3

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
28
3
and to the extent the filing is intended to request modification of the discovery
schedule, it is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 13, 2026
Case 2:24-cv-01533-TLN-SCR Document 96 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 3