David A. Estrada v. Macias et al
Rule 16 Discovery ORDER Following Initial Scheduling Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 8/22/17. (Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:15-cv-01335-EPG (PC)
DAVID A. ESTRADA,
RULE 16 DISCOVERY ORDER
FOLLOWING INITIAL SCHEDULING
OLGA BEREGOVSKAYA, et al.,
David Estrada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 22, 2017, the Court
held an Initial Scheduling Conference (“Conference”). Plaintiff telephonically appeared on his
own behalf. Counsel David Carrasco telephonically appeared on behalf of Defendants.
During the Conference, the parties discussed the relevant documents in this case and
their possible locations. In an effort to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of
this action,1 and after consideration of the factors in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1),2
IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 163 that:
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.”).
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.
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. 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. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Defendants shall produce to
Plaintiff copies of all of Plaintiff’s medical records for the period of August 8, 2012,
through February 3, 2013.
copies of all of Plaintiff’s medical records; and
Alternatively, Defendants may produce to Plaintiff
3. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Defendants shall make an
inquiry with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation regarding
maintenance records for Plaintiff’s cell for the time period identified in the
complaint. If Defendants are able to obtain the maintenance records, Defendants
shall produce copies of those records to Plaintiff. If, after receiving the records,
Defendants have any objections to producing them, Defendants should notify the
Plaintiff of that objection.
Defendants should serve Plaintiff with a notice stating that they were unable to
obtain the records.
If Defendants are unable to obtain the records,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 22, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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.”).
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?