Ricks v. Levine, et al.

Filing 42

ORDER Denying 40 Request for Discovery Scheduling Conference and for Extension of Time, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/15/16. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

SCOTT K. RICKS,

10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.
G. LEVINE, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:15-cv-01150-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
DISCOVERY SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE AND FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME
(ECF No. 40)

Plaintiff Scott K. Ricks (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on

17

July 24, 2015. On August 28, 2016, this matter was reassigned to Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline

18

for all further proceedings. (ECF No. 10.)

19

On November 30, 2016, District Judge Anthony Ishii ordered this action to be related to

20

Ricks v. Austria, et al., 1:15-cv-01147-AWI-BAM, and Ricks v. Onyeye, et al., 1:15-cv-1148-

21

AWI-BAM. (ECF No. 36.) The matter was reassigned to District Judge Anthony Ishii, and

22

referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

23

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ request for a discovery scheduling conference

24

and for an extension of time, filed December 13, 2016. (ECF No. 40). Defendants note that

25

before this case was reassigned by District Judge Ishii, Chief Judge Beistline had issued a

26

scheduling and planning order, on November 16, 2016. (ECF No. 36.) Defendants argue that

27

since this matter has been related to the two cases noted above, discovery and other deadlines

28

should be coordinated, and they seek a telephonic discovery scheduling conference to discuss the
1

1

matter. Defendants specifically state that they (1) request for the November 16, 2016 order to be

2

rescinded; (2) they intend to object to the provisions of the November 16, 2016 scheduling order

3

requiring initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) if the matter is

4

not rescinded; and (3) in the alternative, they request a sixty-day extension to comply with the

5

Rule 26(a)(1) disclosure deadline.

6

Due to the reassignment of this action to this Court, the undersigned shall issue an

7

amended discovery and scheduling order, in keeping with this Court’s usual practices. The dates

8

and deadlines set forth in that amended order will be comparable to the deadlines in the original

9

order, so as not to disrupt the orderly pretrial development of this action. A telephonic

10

conference is not necessary at this time, and thus the request for one is denied. Furthermore, in

11

accordance with Rule 26(a)(1)(B)(iv), this proceeding is exempt from the initial disclosures

12

usually required under Rule 26(a)(1)(A), and the Court finds no need to vary from that general

13

exemption in this case. As a result, Defendants’ request for an extension of time to comply with

14

the Rule 26(a)(1)(A) disclosure deadline is denied, as moot.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ request for a discovery

15
16

scheduling conference and extension of time, filed December 13, 2016 (ECF No. 40) is

17

DENIED. A separate amended discovery and scheduling order will issue concurrently with this

18

order.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

December 15, 2016

22

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2