Meadows v. Reeves, et al.
ORDER AFTER Telephonic Conference re: Discovery Dispute, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/28/16. (Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:11-cv-00257 JLT (PC)
ORDER AFTER TELEPHONIC
CONFERENCE RE: DISCOVERY
At the request of counsel for the plaintiff, the Court held an informal, telephonic
conference regarding discovery disputes. After discussion with counsel, the Court ORDERS:
No later than 5 p.m. on December 29, 2016, counsel for the defendant will lodge
via email to JLTOrders@caed.uscourts.gov or via USPS or overnight mail the unredacted eight
pages of the investigation into the letter of instruction discussed at the conference for in camera
review and copies of the inmate complaints provided to counsel for the plaintiff. The purpose of
the review is to determine whether the 6 pages of the investigation not provided to plaintiff and
the identities of the inmate complainants should be disclosed. In making this determination, the
Court will proceed according to the scope of discovery set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26;
No later than January 6, 2017, the CDCR SHALL provide to the parties an
amended response to the subpoena issued by the plaintiff and MAY NOT refuse to produce
documents merely because the documents were produced by a party. The CDCR is strongly
urged to provide a supplemental declaration more clearly setting forth whether the documents
described in category 1 of the subpoena exist and, if so, whether they will be produced or why
they will not be produced;
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);
For purposes of clarity, the telephonic trial confirmation hearing, previously set on
January 6, 2017 is VACATED (See Doc. 116 at 1 n. 1);
The parties are relieved of their obligation to provide the Court a status report
related to impediments to commencing trial. Rather, any such impediments should be raised as
soon as they are known and, as necessary, in the joint pretrial statement;
As to the request to amend the complaint, if the plaintiff chooses to proceed on a
motion, she SHALL address Rule 16 and Rule 15 in doing so. Likewise, she SHALL address
whether the issues raised in the proposed amendment could be raised via an independent action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 28, 2016
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?