(PC) Hammler v. Diaz

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALLEN HAMMLER, Case No. 2:20-cv-1890-DC-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER RALPH DIAZ, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a state inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a motion requesting that the court order the preservation of a recorded interview. ECF No. 93. Plaintiff’s motion is denied because defendants already have a general duty to preserve evidence. See Ameripride Svcs., Inc. v. Valley Indus. Serv., Inc., No. CIV-S-00-113 LKK-JFM, 2006 WL 2308442, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2006) (citing National Ass’n of Radiation Survivors v. Turnage, 115 F.R.D. 543, 566-67 (N.D.Cal. 1987)). If plaintiff has concerns regarding the preservation, he should send notices to preserve evidence defense counsel. See Picozzi v. Nevada, 2023 WL 11920185, at *2 (D. Nev. April 12, 2023).

25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to preserve evidence, ECF No. 93, is denied. | 1718 SO ORDERED.

3 ( — Dated: _ March 12. 2025 ssn (aioe 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE g il