Smith v. Fantone et al

Filing 50

DISCOVERY ORDER Following Initial Scheduling Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 3/16/2018. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

TRAYVONE SMITH,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12
13

Case No. 1:16-cv-01179-LJO-EPG (PC)
DISCOVERY ORDER FOLLOWING
INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

v.
EMMANUEL J. FANTONE and JASWANT
KHOKHAR,
Defendants.

14
15

Trayvone Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 7, 2018, the

17

Court held an Initial Scheduling Conference (“Conference”). Plaintiff telephonically appeared

18

on his own behalf. Counsel Adam Young telephonically appeared on behalf of Defendants.

19

During the Conference, the Court and the parties discussed relevant documents in this

20

case and their possible locations. In addition to opening discovery generally, the Court ordered

21

that certain documents that are central to the dispute be promptly produced.

22

Therefore, in an effort to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of this

23

action,1 and after consideration of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1),2 IT IS ORDERED3

24
25
1

26
27
28

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.”).
1

1

that:

2

1. Plaintiff has until April 6, 2018, to serve Defendants with his initial disclosures. As

3

discussed in the Court’s prior order (ECF No. 30), Plaintiff shall provide Defendants

4

with “[t]he name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each

5

individual likely to have discoverable information−along with the subjects of that

6

information−that [Plaintiff] may use to support [his] claims or defenses, unless the

7

use would be solely for impeachment.” (Id. at 2). Plaintiff shall also provide

8

Defendants with a “copy−or a description by category and location−of all

9

documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that [Plaintiff] has

10

in [his] possession, custody, or control and may use to support [his] claims or

11

defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment.” (Id.); and

12

///

13

///

14

///

15

///

16

///

17

///

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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
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.”). See also Advisory Committee Notes to 1993 Amendment to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding Rule 26(a) (“The enumeration in Rule 26(a) of items to be disclosed
does not prevent a court from requiring by order or local rule that the parties disclosed additional information
without a discovery request.”).
2

1

2. Each party has until April 6, 2018, to serve the opposing party with copies of all

2

documents that they have related to the issue of whether Plaintiff exhausted his

3

available administrative remedies as to his allegations in this case, including any

4

grievances Plaintiff filed related to the allegations in this case, as well as any

5

responses Plaintiff received to those grievances.

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 16, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3