Villery v. California Department of Corrections, et al.

Filing 61

ORDER Following Second Informal Telephonic Discovery Conference, Held on January 30 2018,signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/31/18. (Case Management Deadline: 2/9/2018, Filing Deadline: 3/16/2018, Responses due by 2/23/2018) (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10 JARED M. VILLERY,

Case No. 1:15-cv-00987-DAD-BAM (PC)

11

ORDER FOLLOWING SECOND INFORMAL
TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE,
HELD ON JANUARY 30, 2018

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,

[ECF Nos. 52, 59]

14
Defendants.
15
16
17

Plaintiff Jared M. Villery is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19

On January 30, 2017, the Court held a second informal telephonic discovery conference.

20 Plaintiff appeared telephonically on his own behalf, and Sarah Margaret Gold Brattin appeared on
21 behalf of Defendants.
22

For the reasons discussed at the conference, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

23

1.

Plaintiff may file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s July 5, 2017 screening

24 order on the limited issue of the scope of the policy claim against Defendants Beard and Kernan.
25 Plaintiff must deliver his motion to prison authorities for mailing to the Clerk of the Court no later
26 than February 9, 2018. Defendants may file a response on or before February 23, 2018. No reply
27 will be permitted, and the motion will be deemed submitted after the time for Defendants’ response
28 has passed. Local Rule 230(l);

1

1

2.

Defendants Acosta, Kendall, Grimmig, Woodard, Guerrero, and Jones shall respond

2 to the Requests for Admission listed in Plaintiff’s January 16, 2018 letter, including the nineteen
3 (19) additional requests to Defendant Grimmig described in the letter, by March 16, 2018.
4 Defendants are not precluded from raising specific objections to the requests, where appropriate.
5 Defendants Beard and Kernan are granted a STAY on responding to Plaintiff’s requests for
6 admission until after a determination on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration regarding the policy
7 claim, discussed above;
8

3.

The Court expects the parties to take into consideration the guidance given during

9 these discovery conferences and expects them to continue to meet and confer in good faith on any
10 disputes. As noted during the conference, if the parties bring any motion for a protective order or a
11 motion to compel regarding numerous discovery requests, the Court does not have the resources to
12 review each individual request. Requests at issue must be described by categories in any such
13 motion, and providing samples is acceptable.
14
15 IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

January 31, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2