Wheeler v. Alison et al

Filing 147

ORDER DENYING Defendant Mui's 145 146 Motion to Compel without Prejudice; ORDER IMPOSING Meet and Confer Requirement on Parties; ORDER VACATING Dates in Discovery and Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 7/18/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

ERIC WHEELER,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
vs.
ALISON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12cv00861 LJO DLB PC
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
MUI’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(Documents 145 and 146)
ORDER IMPOSING MEET AND CONFER
REQUIREMENT ON PARTIES
ORDER VACATING DATES IN
DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER

18

Plaintiff Eric Wheeler (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

19

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

20
21

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on
Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on May 25, 2012, on the following claims: (1) excessive force in

22

violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Duck, Murrieta and Lowder; (2) failure
23
24
25
26
27

to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Duck, Murrietta, Lowder,
Loftis and Alison; and (3) deliberate indifference to a serious medical in violation of the Eighth
Amendment against Defendants Ross, Mui, Neubarth and Ancheta.
The discovery cut-off was July 16, 2014.

28
1

1

The Court recently imposed the meet and confer requirement on the parties for the

2

numerous pending discovery disputes. Plaintiff’s motions to compel were denied without

3
4

prejudice.
On July 16, 2014, Defendant Mui filed two motions to compel. Counsel states that he

5

attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff, but staff inadvertently refused to accept collect call
6
7
8
9

charges from Plaintiff when he called counsel on two occasions. Counsel filed the two motions
to compel given the July 16, 2014, discovery deadline.
The Court will impose the same meet and confer requirements on the parties in

10

attempting to resolve Defendant Mui’s motions to compel. Local Rule 251(b). Therefore,

11

within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order, the parties are ordered to meet and

12

confer by letter in a good faith effort to resolve all pending discovery disputes.

13

If they are unable to resolve the disputes by letter, the parties are ordered to meet and

14

confer by telephone within fourteen (14) days of the prior meet and confer effort. Defendant

15

Mui’s counsel shall arrange for the telephone conference with Plaintiff.

16
17
18
19

If, after a good faith attempt, the parties are unable to resolve the remaining disputes, they
must file a joint statement regarding the discovery disagreement, in compliance with Local Rule
251(c). The joint statement must include a description of the meet and confer efforts. The Court
has provided Plaintiff with a copy of the rule. Defendant Mui’s counsel will bear the burden of

20
21
22
23
24
25

preparing and filing the joint statement.
The parties are reminded that if motions to compel are necessary after meet and
confer efforts, and the Court makes a finding that either party did not act in good faith in
attempting to resolve the discovery disputes, the Court will impose discovery sanctions.
Given the pending discovery disputes, the Court finds it necessary to VACATE the dates

26

in the January 17, 2014, Discovery and Scheduling Order. The Court will set new dates at the

27

appropriate time.

28
2

1
2
3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

The parties meet and confer in compliance with this order;

2.

Defendant Mui’s motions to compel (Documents 145 and 146) are DENIED

4

without prejudice; and

5

3.

The dates in the January 17, 2014, Discovery and Scheduling Order (Document

6

45) are VACATED.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

July 18, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3