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)

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