Caruso v. Johnson et al

Filing 67

ORDER Following Discovery and Status Conference signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 04/05/2018. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

Plaintiff,

11
12
13

Case No. 1:15-cv-00780-AWI-EPG (PC)

GINA CARUSO,

ORDER FOLLOWING DISCOVERY AND
STATUS CONFERENCE

v.

(ECF NOS. 58, 60, & 65)

OFFICER G. SOLORIO, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

Gina Caruso (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

16

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 4, 2018, the Court held a

17

Discovery and Status Conference (“Conference”). Plaintiff telephonically appeared on her own

18

behalf. Counsel Derrek Lee personally appeared on behalf of Defendants.

19

As stated on the record at the Conference, IT IS ORDERED that:1

20

1. The order to show cause issued on March 26, 2018 (ECF No. 65), is

21
22

DISCHARGED;
2. Defendants have until April 18, 2018, to file a supplemental brief in response to
Plaintiff’s motions to compel;

23
24

3. The parties are to meet and confer regarding the alleged alterations to the incident

25

reports. Plaintiff shall mail her questions to Mr. Lee. Mr. Lee shall respond to

26

Plaintiff’s questions, and do a reasonable search for responsive documents (if

27
1

28

The Court will extend the expert disclosure deadline, the rebuttal expert disclosure deadline, and the
expert discovery cutoff date in a separate order.
1

1

necessary).

2

interrogatories on Defendants related to the incident reports that Plaintiff alleges

3

were altered;

4

Additionally, Plaintiff has until May 2, 2018, to serve up to five

4. Plaintiff’s request for the re-issuance of a subpoena duces tecum (ECF No. 60) is

5

DENIED without prejudice.

6

counsel has already conducted a search of documents within the possession, custody

7

of control of CDCR, so a third party subpoena to CDCR is unnecessary. On or

8

before June 20, 2018, Plaintiff may request the issuance of another subpoena

9

seeking documents related to the allegedly altered incident reports if she believes

10

that it is needed notwithstanding defense counsel’s own efforts. If Plaintiff does file

11

such a request, she must attach Mr. Lee’s responses to her questions, as well as

12

Defendants’ responses to her interrogatories; and

As discussed extensively on the record, Defense

13

5. Plaintiff’s request to depose Correctional Officer Bates (ECF No. 58) is

14

GRANTED. Plaintiff does not need leave of the Court to conduct a deposition.

15

Plaintiff is to meet and confer with Mr. Lee to coordinate the deposition.

16

necessary, Plaintiff may request that the Court issue a subpoena to compel

17

Correctional Officer Bates to attend the deposition. Plaintiff may wait until after the

18

settlement conference to depose Correctional Officer Bates if she chooses.2

If

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 5, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Plaintiff is responsible for paying the costs associated with the deposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 & 45.
2