Ortiz v. Garza

Filing 36

ORDER on Plaintiff's Motion Regardign Amended Discovery and Scheduling Order 35 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/1/16. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSE A. ORTIZ,

12

Case No. 1:15-cv-01370-DAD-JLT (PC)
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

GARZA,

15

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
REGARDING AMENDED DISCOVERY
AND SCHEDULING ORDER
(Doc. 35)

Defendant.

16
17

On November 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion inquiring whether he should “respond to”

18

the Amended Discovery and Scheduling Order (Doc. 32), or if Defendant needs to reply to his

19

initial disclosures. (Doc. 35.) Plaintiff also requested the Court provide him copies of numerous

20

Local Rules and Rules of Federal Civil Procedure. (Id.)
As stated in an order that issued on October 21, 2016, that previously addressed Plaintiff’s

21
22

confusion on this issue, initial disclosures are not required in this action. (See Docs. 32, 34.)

23

Though Plaintiff previously submitted initial disclosure documents to this Court, the initial

24

Discovery and Scheduling Order which required such disclosures is no longer in effect. (Id.) The

25

Court sent Plaintiff’s initial disclosure documents back to him via the U.S. Postal Service1 in

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff indicates that he has not received the returned documents. Thus, the Court requests the Litigation
Coordinator look into receipt of these documents at the facility and to make efforts to see that they are returned to
Plaintiff.

1

1

early October. (Id.) Defendant did not receive Plaintiff’s initial disclosure documents and is not

2

under any duty to provide initial disclosure documents to Plaintiff. Plaintiff should not await any

3

response from Defendant to his initial disclosure documents, but rather should conduct discovery

4

as provided in the Amended Discovery and Scheduling Order (Doc. 32) that issued on October 5,

5

2016.

6

Further, the Court does not provide copies of Local Rules and/or the Federal Rules of

7

Civil Procedure to parties appearing before it. Such rules should be accessible to Plaintiff via the

8

law library at his current facility of incarceration. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

9

(1)

Plaintiff’s motion, filed on November 28, 2016 (Doc. 35), is GRANTED in

10

PART in as much as this order resolves his confusion regarding initial disclosures;

11

but it is DENIED in PART in that the Court will not provide Plaintiff copies of

12

the rules he requested;

13

(2)

Coordinator at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California;

14

and

15
16

The Clerk’s Office is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Litigation

(3)

The Litigation Coordinator is requested to facilitate Plaintiff’s access both to his
initial disclosure documents which the Court mailed to Plaintiff in early October of

17

this year, and to SATF’s procedures for inmates to access this Court’s Local Rules

18

and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 1, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2