Lear v. Biter et al

Filing 95

ORDER REQUIRING Parties to Submit Proposed Scheduling Order; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 83 Motion for Copy of Local Rules signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 8/2/2019. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR,

11
12
13

Case No. 1:15-cv-01903-DAD-JDP

Plaintiff,
ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO
SUBMIT PROPOSED SCHEDULING
ORDER

v.
JOHNATHAN AKANNO and
JENNIFER PALOMINO,

14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR COPY OF LOCAL RULES

Defendants.
15

ECF No. 83

16

Plaintiff Roderick William Lear, a state prisoner represented by counsel, proceeds in this

17

civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have not settled this case, so this

18

case will proceed toward trial. We will require plaintiff’s counsel attorney Jack Duran, Jr.—who

19

is currently representing plaintiff for the limited purposes of settlement—to inform the court, by

20

the deadline set forth below, whether he agrees to represent plaintiff at trial.

21

The court will issue a new scheduling order setting the dates for trial and the deadlines for

22

trial submissions. We will allow additional discovery before trial, given plaintiff’s past

23

difficulties with discovery, as previously discussed. See ECF No. 76 at 14. If appropriate, we

24

will also allow plaintiff to amend his complaint. The parties must file proposed scheduling orders

25

by the deadline set forth below. If possible, the parties should confer and attempt to file one

26

jointly-proposed scheduling order. By the same deadline, either side may oppose any amendment

27

of the complaint or additional discovery. The proposed scheduling order need not include the

28

1

1

trial date and the deadlines for trial-related submissions, but the proposed order must include

2

proposed discovery deadlines. After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the court will consider

3

holding a telephonic status conference to discuss the scope of discovery and the court’s potential

4

reimbursement of discovery costs for plaintiff. After considering the parties’ submissions and

5

this court’s calendar, the court will issue a new scheduling order that includes all pertinent dates,

6

including the trial date. If the parties agree that this case is ready for immediate trial, this case

7

will proceed to trial without discovery.
Plaintiff has filed a pro se motion for a copy of this court’s Local Rule 270, which governs

8
9

settlement conferences. ECF No. 83. After the filing of this motion, the court recruited counsel

10

who assisted plaintiff with settlement. Because plaintiff had the benefit of representation,

11

plaintiff’s motion for a copy of the Local Rule is moot. We will deny plaintiff’s motion.

12

Order

13

1. By Wednesday, August 14, 2019, plaintiff’s counsel Jack Duran, Jr. must inform the
court whether he will represent plaintiff at trial.

14

2. By Wednesday, August 28, 2019, each party must file a proposed scheduling order

15

consistent with this order.

16

3. Plaintiff’s motion for a copy of Local Rule 270, ECF No. 83, is denied.

17
18
19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

August 2, 2019
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

2