David A. Estrada v. Macias et al

Filing 26

Rule 16 Discovery ORDER Following Initial Scheduling Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 8/22/17. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 8 9 Case No. 1:15-cv-01335-EPG (PC) DAVID A. ESTRADA, Plaintiff, RULE 16 DISCOVERY ORDER FOLLOWING INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE v. OLGA BEREGOVSKAYA, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 David Estrada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 13 in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 22, 2017, the Court 14 held an Initial Scheduling Conference (“Conference”). Plaintiff telephonically appeared on his 15 own behalf. Counsel David Carrasco telephonically appeared on behalf of Defendants. 16 During the Conference, the parties discussed the relevant documents in this case and 17 their possible locations. In an effort to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of 18 this action,1 and after consideration of the factors in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1),2 19 IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 163 that: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 See, e.g., United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 508–09 (9th Cir. 2008) (“We begin with the principle that the district court is charged with effectuating the speedy and orderly administration of justice. There is universal acceptance in the federal courts that, in carrying out this mandate, a district court has the authority to enter pretrial case management and discovery orders designed to ensure that the relevant issues to be tried are identified, that the parties have an opportunity to engage in appropriate discovery and that the parties are adequately and timely prepared so that the trial can proceed efficiently and intelligibly.”). 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Ibid. 3 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, “[a]t any pretrial conference, the court may consider and take appropriate action on the following matters: . . . controlling and scheduling discovery, including orders affecting disclosures and discovery under Rule 26 and Rules 29 through 37” and “facilitating in other ways the 1 1 1. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Defendants shall produce to Plaintiff copies of all documents identified in Defendants’ initial disclosures; 2 3 2. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Defendants shall produce to 4 Plaintiff copies of all of Plaintiff’s medical records for the period of August 8, 2012, 5 through February 3, 2013. 6 copies of all of Plaintiff’s medical records; and Alternatively, Defendants may produce to Plaintiff 7 3. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Defendants shall make an 8 inquiry with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation regarding 9 maintenance records for Plaintiff’s cell for the time period identified in the 10 complaint. If Defendants are able to obtain the maintenance records, Defendants 11 shall produce copies of those records to Plaintiff. If, after receiving the records, 12 Defendants have any objections to producing them, Defendants should notify the 13 Plaintiff of that objection. 14 Defendants should serve Plaintiff with a notice stating that they were unable to 15 obtain the records. If Defendants are unable to obtain the records, 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 22, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(F). See also Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery.”). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 vests the district court with early control over cases “toward a process of judicial management that embraces the entire pretrial phase, especially motions and discovery.” In re Arizona, 528 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming district court’s requiring that prison officials prepare a Martinez report to give detailed factual information involving a prisoner’s suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and stating “district courts have wide latitude in controlling discovery.”). 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?