Riley v. Tallerico et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 11/16/2017 for Plaintiff to Show Cause why he should not be sanctioned for failing to appear, failing to file his Scheduling Conference Statement and failing to serve his Initial Disclosures on Defendants; requiring Plaintiff to file his Scheduling Conference Statement and serve Defendants with his initial Disclosures; denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 44 and directing Clerk to send Plaintiff a copy of 33 Order. (Show Cause Response due by 12/15/2017). (Lundstrom, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE
SANCTIONED FOR FAILING TO
APPEAR, FAILING TO FILE HIS
STATEMENT, AND FAILING TO SERVE
HIS INITIAL DISCLOSURES ON
Case No. 1:16-cv-01189-AWI-EPG (PC)
TALLERICO, et al.,
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
HIS SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
STATEMENT AND SERVE DEFENDANTS
WITH HIS INITIAL DISCLOSURES
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL (ECF NO. 44)
ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEND
PLAINTIFF A COPY OF ORDER
REQUIRING INITIAL DISCLOSURES
AND SETTING AN INITIAL
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE (ECF NO.
Shannon Riley (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court attempted to hold an
initial scheduling conference on November 15, 2017. Deputy Attorney General Erin Doering
and Supervising Deputy Attorney General Michelle Angus telephonically appeared on behalf
of Defendants. Plaintiff failed to appear. Plaintiff also failed to file the required scheduling
conference statement and did not serve Defendants with his initial disclosures (see ECF No.
The Court has rescheduled the conference to January 8, 2018, at 1:30 p.m. (ECF No.
48). Prior to the conference, Plaintiff will be required to 1) explain why he did not participate
in the conference as ordered; 2) file a scheduling conference statement as previously ordered;
and 3) serve Defendants with his initial disclosures as previously ordered.
Additionally, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 44) because
discovery has not yet been opened in this case (ECF No. 4, p. 4). However, Defendants will be
required to respond to the discovery requests identified in the motion to compel (and attached
exhibits) forty-five days after the Court opens discovery; Plaintiff does not need to reserve the
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff shall show cause why sanctions (including possible dismissal of this
case) should not issue for his failure to attend the initial scheduling conference,
his failure to file his scheduling conference statement, and his failure to serve
Defendants with his initial disclosures. Plaintiff has until December 15, 2017, to
file a written response explaining why he did not attend the conference, why he
did not file his scheduling conference statement, and why he did not serve
Defendants with his initial disclosures;
2. Plaintiff has until December 15, 2017, to file his scheduling conference
statement and serve Defendants with his initial disclosures;
3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 44) is DENIED. Defendants have forty-
five days from the date discovery is opened to respond to the discovery requests
identified in the motion to compel (and attached exhibits); and
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the order requiring
initial disclosures and setting an initial scheduling conference (ECF No. 33).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 16, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Court has not reviewed the substance of the requests and is not making a legal ruling as to
their propriety. The Court is merely requiring Defendants to serve objections and responses as if Plaintiff’s
discovery were served on the date the Court opens 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?