Riley v. Tallerico et al

Filing 49

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)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

Plaintiff,

6

ORDER 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

v.

7
8

Case No. 1:16-cv-01189-AWI-EPG (PC)

SHANNON RILEY,

TALLERICO, et al.,
Defendants.

9
10

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
HIS SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
STATEMENT AND SERVE DEFENDANTS
WITH HIS INITIAL DISCLOSURES

11
12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL (ECF NO. 44)

13
14

ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEND
PLAINTIFF A COPY OF ORDER
REQUIRING INITIAL DISCLOSURES
AND SETTING AN INITIAL
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE (ECF NO.
33)

15
16
17
18

Shannon Riley (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19

with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court attempted to hold an

20

initial scheduling conference on November 15, 2017. Deputy Attorney General Erin Doering

21

and Supervising Deputy Attorney General Michelle Angus telephonically appeared on behalf

22

of Defendants. Plaintiff failed to appear. Plaintiff also failed to file the required scheduling

23

conference statement and did not serve Defendants with his initial disclosures (see ECF No.

24

33).

25

The Court has rescheduled the conference to January 8, 2018, at 1:30 p.m. (ECF No.

26

48). Prior to the conference, Plaintiff will be required to 1) explain why he did not participate

27

in the conference as ordered; 2) file a scheduling conference statement as previously ordered;

28

and 3) serve Defendants with his initial disclosures as previously ordered.
1

1

Additionally, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 44) because

2

discovery has not yet been opened in this case (ECF No. 4, p. 4). However, Defendants will be

3

required to respond to the discovery requests identified in the motion to compel (and attached

4

exhibits) forty-five days after the Court opens discovery; Plaintiff does not need to reserve the

5

discovery.1

6

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:

7

1. Plaintiff shall show cause why sanctions (including possible dismissal of this

8

case) should not issue for his failure to attend the initial scheduling conference,

9

his failure to file his scheduling conference statement, and his failure to serve

10

Defendants with his initial disclosures. Plaintiff has until December 15, 2017, to

11

file a written response explaining why he did not attend the conference, why he

12

did not file his scheduling conference statement, and why he did not serve

13

Defendants with his initial disclosures;

14

2. Plaintiff has until December 15, 2017, to file his scheduling conference

15

statement and serve Defendants with his initial disclosures;

16

3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 44) is DENIED. Defendants have forty-

17

five days from the date discovery is opened to respond to the discovery requests

18

identified in the motion to compel (and attached exhibits); and

19

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the order requiring

20

initial disclosures and setting an initial scheduling conference (ECF No. 33).

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 16, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

1

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.
2