Mario Amador Gonzalez v. Warden Soto et al

Filing 78

DISCOVERY ORDER Following Initial Scheduling Conference signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/11/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 8 9 Case No. 1:16-cv-01675-DAD-EPG (PC) MARIO AMADOR GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, DISCOVERY ORDER FOLLOWING INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE v. DR. SCHARFFENBERG and R.N. S. SOTO, 10 Defendants. 11 12 Mario Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 13 in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 4, 2017, the Court 14 held an Initial Scheduling Conference (“Conference”). Plaintiff telephonically appeared on his 15 own behalf. Deputy Attorney General Sean Lodholz and Supervising Deputy Attorney General 16 Jon Allin telephonically appeared on behalf of Defendants. 17 During the Conference, the parties discussed the relevant documents in this case and 18 their possible locations. In an effort to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of 19 this action,1 and after consideration of the factors in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1),2 20 21 22 1 23 24 25 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.”). 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. 1 1 IT IS ORDERED3 that: 2 1. Plaintiff has until November 1, 2017, to serve his initial disclosures on Defendants. 3 As discussed in the Court’s prior order (ECF No. 75), Plaintiff shall provide 4 Defendants with “[t]he name and, if known, the address and telephone number of 5 each individual likely to have discoverable information−along with the subjects of 6 that information−that [Plaintiff] may use to support [his] claims or defenses, unless 7 the 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.); 12 2. Defendants have until November 3, 2017, to provide Plaintiff with copies of all 13 medical records they have obtained related to the incident described in the 14 complaint. 15 Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with a copy of those records. If Defendants have 16 an objection to providing any of the medical records to Plaintiff, Defendants shall 17 inform Plaintiff that they are making the objection. Plaintiff may challenge any 18 objection by filing a motion to compel; If Defendants obtain any additional relevant medical records, 19 3. If Plaintiff obtains relevant medical records beyond what Defendants provide to 20 him, he must provide a copy of those records to Defendants. If Plaintiff has an 21 objection to providing any of the medical records to Defendants, Plaintiff shall 22 inform Defendants that he is making the objection. Defendants may challenge any 23 3 24 25 26 27 28 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.”). 2 1 objection by filing a motion to compel; and 2 4. Plaintiff has until November 3, 2017, to provide Defendants with copies of all 3 prison law office correspondence related to this case. If Plaintiff has an objection to 4 providing any of the correspondence to Defendants, Plaintiff shall inform 5 Defendants that he is making the objection. 6 objection by filing a motion to compel. Defendants may challenge any 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 11, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?