Mix v. King

Filing 125

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO MEET AND CONFER BY PHONE, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/3/2016. (Kusamura, W)

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
2
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

ROBERT D. MIX,

6

Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
MEET AND CONFER BY PHONE

v.

7
8

1:13-cv-00823-AWI-MJS

AUDREY KING, Executive Director,
CSH; LINDSEY CUNNINGHAM,
Psychologist, CSH; DR. SALOUM,
Psychiatrist, CHS,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
The Court’s pretrial order required the parties to meet and confer regarding exhibits.
Defendants’ counsel has informed the Court that Plaintiff insists upon meeting in person. He has
expressed his opinion that the obligation to premark exhibits can be accomplished over the
telephone. To meet in person would involve driving three and one-half hours each way from
Sacramento to Coalinga and billing the client agency $170 per hour. Defendants’ counsel argues
that meeting in person would be unduly burdensome and unnecessarily costly given the task can
be easily accomplished over the telephone. In this instance, the Court agrees.
Plaintiff is ordered to meet and confer with Defendants’ counsel by telephone “to ensure
against duplication of exhibits by offering joint exhibits where possible.” Doc. 96 at 10.
Defendants’ counsel is directed to use best efforts to ensure that Plaintiff is provided a copy of
this order as quickly and to make all necessary arrangement to confer telephonically as soon as
possible.

24
25 IT IS SO ORDERED.
26 Dated: December 30, 2016
27

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

28
1