Flowers #125290 v. Lawrence et al

Filing 121

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion For Guidance, (Doc. 120 ), is hereby DENIED. See attached Order for complete details. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 5/18/2016. (KAL)

WO
1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Eulandas J Flowers,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-14-08184-PCT-JAT (ESW)

Sandra Lawrence, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Eulandas J. Flowers’s “Motion for

16

Guidance.” (Doc. 120). In his motion, Plaintiff requests two forms of relief from the

17

Court: (1) that the joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order, due June 3, 2016, be extended five

18

(5) days; and (2) for assistance regarding a document production request. The Court

19

addresses each in turn.

20

Plaintiff first asks the Court to give him five additional days to prepare for a May

21

20, 2016, meeting scheduled between the parties in order to produce a joint Proposed

22

Final Pretrial Order in advance of the June 16, 2016, bench trial on the issue of

23

exhaustion. (Doc. 120 at 1). Plaintiff states that due to his inability to utilize the e-filing

24

system, he only learned of the Court’s Order setting the bench trial on May 11, 2016, five

25

days after the Order was issued. (Id.). The Court acknowledges Plaintiff’s predicament,

26

but will not alter the dates set in the May 5, 2016, Order. (Doc. 116). The joint Proposed

27

Final Pretrial Order is due by June 3, 2016. (Id. at 2). The Final Pretrial Conference for

28

the bench trial only will be held on Wednesday, June 8, 2016. (Id. at 1). The bench trial

1

on the issue of exhaustion will be held on Thursday, June 16, 2016. (Id.). Plaintiff’s

2

request is akin to a motion to stay, and the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated

3

that he would “suffer sufficient hardship or inequity” having to proceed on the current

4

schedule. Schneider v. Sutter Amador Hosp., 621 Fed. Appx. 480, 481 (9th Cir. 2015).

5

Even taking into account the delay in receiving the Order, Plaintiff still had nine days to

6

draft his contributions to the joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order.

7

Plaintiff next appears to ask the Court for assistance regarding a discovery issue.

8

Plaintiff states that he has yet to receive “a copy of the video grievance . . . at issue to

9

review and prepare for the [trial] as requested from [Defendants].” (Doc. 120 at 2). The

10

Court is unable to grant Plaintiff any relief based on the motion filed. The Court observes

11

that on May 5, 2015, a “Notice of Second Request for Production of Documents” was

12

made by Plaintiff concerning DVDs allegedly containing video of Plaintiff’s “emergency

13

grievance.” (Doc. 115). If a discovery dispute exists between the parties, the Court refers

14

Plaintiff to page three of Magistrate Judge Willett’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) Scheduling

15

Order:

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Discovery Disputes: Motions on discovery matters are
strongly discouraged. Parties are directed to LRCiv 7.2,
which prohibits filing discovery motions unless parties have
first conferred in good faith, in person or by telephone, and
attempted to resolve any discovery difficulties. If the parties
cannot reach a resolution, they may file a motion. Motions,
responses and replies shall not exceed six (6) pages each, and
must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and
LRCiv 37.1. Discovery motions will not be considered after
the discovery deadline.
(Doc. 49 at 3). The Court encourages Plaintiff to follow the procedures set forth in the
above-cited portion of the Scheduling Order.
Finally, Plaintiff asks that the Court be cognizant of the fact that “e-filing delivery
and pick-up at this Unit [are] only done on Wednesdays.” (Doc. 120 at 3). Thus, if the
Court issues an Order requiring that Plaintiff undertake some substantive action after
Wednesday, that he be allotted an appropriate time to complete the requirement, given
the restriction on when he receives the Court’s Order. The Court will endeavor to remain
-2-

1

aware of this limitation.

2

For these reasons,

3

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion For Guidance, (Doc. 120), is hereby

4
5

DENIED.
Dated this 18th day of May, 2016.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-