Dixon v. Harrington et al

Filing 58

ORDER granting in part 56 Motion to modify Discovery and Scheduling Order and setting Discovery and Status Conference signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/16/2017. (Lundstrom, T).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 1:13-cv-00165-DAD-EPG (PC)

TRADELL M. DIXON,

v.
M. ARMAS, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY
DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER
AND SETTING DISCOVERY AND STATUS
CONFERENCE
(ECF NO. 56)

17
18
19

On October 12, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to modify the scheduling order. (ECF

20

No. 56). Defendants ask that the Court modify the deadlines in this case because “Dixon’s non-

21

responses to Flippo’s supplemental written discovery, Armas’s recent reappearance, and the

22

overall procedural posture of the case makes the current deadlines unworkable despite

23

Defendants’ diligence.”

24

discovery and scheduling order, Armas will not have the benefit of submitting his own written

25

discovery, taking Dixon’s deposition as to those specific claims, and specifically conducting

26

discovery regarding the variance of dates between Dixon’s complaints.” (Id. at 3-4).

27
28

(ECF No. 56-1, p. 2). Defendants allege that, “under the current

Defendants propose that the Court vacate all deadlines and set new deadlines based on the
date the Court rules on Defendants’ motion to compel (ECF No. 51).
1

1

The Court finds good cause to modify the schedule in this case, in particular to allow

2

sufficient time for discovery by and regarding Defendant Armas. However, the Court sees no

3

need to wait until after its ruling on Defendants’ motion to compel to modify the schedule.1

4

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:

5

1. Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order is GRANTED IN PART.

6

2. The schedule in this case is modified as follows:

7

a. The non-expert discovery cutoff is February 16, 2018;

8

b. The expert disclosure deadline is March 16, 2018;

9

c. The rebuttal expert disclosure deadline is April 16, 2018;

10

d. The expert discovery cutoff is May 16, 2018;

11

e. The deadline for filing dispositive motions is June 18, 2018;

12

f. Motion(s) for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses, if any, must be filed on

13

or before February 15, 2019. Oppositions, if any, must be filed on or before

14

March 15, 2019;

15

g. If Plaintiff wishes to have the Marshals Service serve any unincarcerated

16

witnesses who refuse to testify voluntarily, Plaintiff must submit the money

17

orders to the Court no later than March 15, 2019. In order to ensure timely

18

submission of the money orders, Plaintiff must notify the Court of the names

19

and locations of his witnesses, in compliance with step 4 above, no later than

20

February 15, 2019;
h. Plaintiff shall file and serve a pretrial statement as described in this order on or

21

before February 15, 2019.

22

statement on or before March 15, 2019;

23
i.

24

j.

26

28

The Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing is set for April 22, 2019, at 1:30
p.m., before District Judge Dale A. Drozd; and

25

27

Defendant(s) shall file and serve a pretrial

The trial is set for June 18, 2019, at 1:00 p.m., before District Judge Dale A.

1

The Court notes that discovery opened as to defendant Armas on September 28, 2017.
(ECF No. 38, p. 2; ECF No. 54).
2

1

Drozd.

2

3. A discovery and status conference is set for January 24, 2018, at 1:30 p.m. Parties

3

have leave to appear by phone. To join the conference, each party is directed to call

4

the toll-free number (888) 251−2909 and use Access Code 1024453. Up until four

5

weeks before the conference, the parties may file motions to compel further discovery

6

responses. No later than two weeks before the conference, the responding party may

7

file response(s) to motion(s) to compel. The motion should include a copy of the

8

request(s) and any response to the request(s) at issue. Unless there is a need for

9

discovery prior to the conference, motions to compel will not be considered until the

10

conference. 2 Motions to compel will not be permitted after the conference absent

11

good cause. The parties should be prepared to address all discovery disputes at the

12

conference.

13

4. Plaintiff shall make arrangements with staff at his or her institution of confinement for

14

his or her attendance at the discovery and status conference. Plaintiff’s institution of

15

confinement shall make Plaintiff available for the conference at the date and time

16

indicated above. To the extent possible, prior to the conference defense counsel shall

17

confirm with Plaintiff’s institution of confinement that arrangements have been made

18

for Plaintiff’s attendance.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated:

October 16, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The Court notes that it will likely rule on the motion to compel that was filed on
September 22, 2017 (ECF No. 51), before the discovery and status conference.
3