Smith et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 128

Joint Discovery Plan ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/5/15.(Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

FRESNO DIVISION

7
8
9

ARTHUR DUANE JACKSON, et al. ,

10

Plaintiffs,

11
12

v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

13
14

Defendants.
Case No. 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB
COREY LAMAR SMITH, et al.,

15
16
17

Case No. 1:13-cv-01055-LJO-SAB

Plaintiffs,
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

18

Defendants.

19
20

Case No. 1:13-cv-00272-LJO-SAB
IDRIS NAWABI,
Plaintiff,

21
22
23
24

JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN ORDER

v.
CATES, et al.,
Defendants.

25
26
27
28

On December 5, 2014, the Court conducted an informal telephonic conference to discuss
the parties’ development of a joint discovery plan in these and other cases that are or will be
related or consolidated. This order addresses procedures to avoid the need to conduct duplicative
1

1

discovery. The respective schedules for conducting discovery in these cases are or will be

2

addressed in separate orders.

3

I.

4

DEPOSITIONS

5
Witnesses will not have to sit for a deposition more than once on the same noticed subject,
6
except by order of the court applying the normal rules for successive depositions. Any deposition
7
notices served during the class-certification phase in Jackson will be limited to issues directed to
8
class certification.
9
The parties have not yet reached a consensus as to what constitutes class-certification
10
discovery as opposed to merits discovery. To identify witnesses with relevant information, to
11
enable witnesses and counsel to effectively prepare for depositions, and to minimize disputes
12
arising during depositions, counsel will confer a sufficient time in advance of any deposition and
13
attempt to reach an understanding as to the purpose and proper scope of the intended
14

examination. Additionally Plaintiffs’ counsel will conduct some written discovery in advance of

15
noticing depositions to identify appropriate witnesses and better define the issues.
16
Counsel in Smith will receive notice of any class-certification depositions in Jackson and
17
may, but are not required to, attend. Counsel for Plaintiffs in Jackson also represent Plaintiff in
18
Nawabi and therefore will have received notice of any depositions. Because class-certification
19
witnesses will have generally prepared to testify only as to the limited issues contemplated by the
20
deposition notice, any examination by Smith counsel will be permitted only with the consent of
21
the witness and all counsel attending the deposition.
22
II.
23
24

WRITTEN DISCOVERY, REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS, AND
ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION (ESI)

25

To avoid duplicative discovery requests, Plaintiffs’ counsel in Jackson, Nawabi, and Smith

26

will review and approve among themselves all discovery requests propounded to the Defendants

27

in any of these cases. Plaintiffs’ counsel anticipate that some areas of disagreement might occur,

28

but a good-faith effort will be made to avoid duplicative requests.
2

1
2

The parties are continuing to work on a stipulation governing requests for electronically
stored information (ESI).

3

III.

4

MAINTENANCE OF DISCOVERY FOR USE IN RELATED CASES

5

Defendants will maintain a database with all discovery requests, responses, and production

6

served in these cases and will be prepared to disclose all discovery then existing, except any

7

private information relating specifically to individual plaintiffs, e.g., medical records and CDCR

8

central files, to any parties bringing future cases involving the core issues presented in these

9

cases.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 5, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3