Herman D. Shead v. Vang et al

Filing 126

ORDER Denying 113 Motion and Requiring Parties to Meet and Confer Regarding Discovery Exchanged if they do not Reach a Settlement Agreement re 119 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/25/15. Meet and Confer Deadline: 3/23/2016. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

HERMAN D. SHEAD,

11

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION AND
REQUIRING PARTIES TO MEET AND
CONFER REGARDING DISCOVERY
EXCHANGED IF THEY DO NOT REACH A
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Defendant.

(Docs. 113 and 119)

12
13
14

v.
C/O VANG,

15

Case No. 1:09-cv-00006-AWI-SKO (PC)

Meet and Confer Deadline: 03/23/2016

_____________________________________/
16
17

Plaintiff Herman D. Shead (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18 pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 5, 2009. This
19 action for damages is proceeding against Defendant Vang (“Defendant”) for excessive force, in
20 violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. On August 24, 2015,
21 Plaintiff filed a motion seeking all discovery exchanged with his former attorneys and a copy of
22 the confidential settlement conference statement submitted by Defendant on August 6, 2013.
23

Plaintiff’s request for a copy of Defendant’s previously submitted confidential settlement

24 conference statement is denied, with prejudice. Each party’s settlement conference statement is
25 completely confidential. Moreover, settlement conference statements are not part of the record
26 and they not retained by the Court.
27

This case is set for a settlement conference on February 22, 2016, and Plaintiff’s motion

28 for a copy of all discovery exchanged may become moot. Therefore, the motion is denied without

1 prejudice to renewal after the settlement conference. If this case does not settle, the parties are
2 required to meet and confer on or before March 23, 2016, regarding the status of the discovery
3 exchanged with Plaintiff’s former counsel. The Court anticipates that given the history in this
4 case with Plaintiff’s former counsel, namely their repeated failure to respond to court orders and
5 Plaintiff’s letters, the parties will be able to resolve this issue without further judicial intervention.
6 In the event that they are unable to do so, either side may file an appropriate motion with the
7 Court. However, compliance with the meet and confer requirement is a prerequisite to seeking
8 further relief from the Court.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED and if this case

9

10 does not settle, the parties are ORDERED to meet and confer on or before March 23, 2016,
11 regarding the discovery exchanged with Plaintiff’s former counsel.
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 Dated:

October 25, 2015

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2