Meadows v. Reeves, et al.

Filing 120

ORDER AFTER Telephonic Conference re: Discovery Dispute, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/28/16. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHANN MEADOWS,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00257 JLT (PC)
ORDER AFTER TELEPHONIC
CONFERENCE RE: DISCOVERY
DISPUTE

DR. REEVES,

15

Defendant.

16
17

At the request of counsel for the plaintiff, the Court held an informal, telephonic

18

conference regarding discovery disputes. After discussion with counsel, the Court ORDERS:

19

1.

No later than 5 p.m. on December 29, 2016, counsel for the defendant will lodge

20

via email to [e-mail] or via USPS or overnight mail the unredacted eight

21

pages of the investigation into the letter of instruction discussed at the conference for in camera

22

review and copies of the inmate complaints provided to counsel for the plaintiff. The purpose of

23

the review is to determine whether the 6 pages of the investigation not provided to plaintiff and

24

the identities of the inmate complainants should be disclosed. In making this determination, the

25

Court will proceed according to the scope of discovery set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26;

26

2.

No later than January 6, 2017, the CDCR SHALL provide to the parties an

27

amended response to the subpoena issued by the plaintiff and MAY NOT refuse to produce

28

documents merely because the documents were produced by a party. The CDCR is strongly

1
2

urged to provide a supplemental declaration more clearly setting forth whether the documents

3

described in category 1 of the subpoena exist and, if so, whether they will be produced or why

4

they will not be produced;

5
6
7
8
9

If upon receiving this amended response, the plaintiff is dissatisfied, she may file a motion
to compel according to the requirements of Local Rule 251(c);
3.

For purposes of clarity, the telephonic trial confirmation hearing, previously set on

January 6, 2017 is VACATED (See Doc. 116 at 1 n. 1);
4.

The parties are relieved of their obligation to provide the Court a status report

10

related to impediments to commencing trial. Rather, any such impediments should be raised as

11

soon as they are known and, as necessary, in the joint pretrial statement;

12

5.

As to the request to amend the complaint, if the plaintiff chooses to proceed on a

13

motion, she SHALL address Rule 16 and Rule 15 in doing so. Likewise, she SHALL address

14

whether the issues raised in the proposed amendment could be raised via an independent action.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 28, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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