Gonzales v. Ferrso, et al.
ORDER granting Motion for Extension of Time 46 and denying Motions for Settlement Conference 41 , 47 signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 3/8/2018. (Lundstrom, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME
Case No. 1:16-cv-01813-DAD-EPG (PC)
(ECF No. 46)
FERRSO et al,
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
(ECF Nos. 41, 47)
Michael Gonzales (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on
Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against defendants Garcia, Brosman, B.
Zavala, Herrick, Tacara, Franklin, Rodriguez, Escalante, and Davis. (ECF No. 42.)
On February 14, 2018, the Court issued an Order setting a mandatory scheduling
conference for May 14, 2018 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 10 (EPG) before the undersigned judge
and requiring initial disclosures within 30 days of the Order. (ECF No. 44.)
disclosures include two types of information that the disclosing party may use to support its
claims or defenses: 1) individuals likely to have discoverable information; and 2) documents that
the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control. (ECF No. 44 at 2.)
On March 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time of 30 days to make
2 disclosures. (ECF No. 46.) For the reasons stated in the motion, the Court GRANTS the motion.
3 The Court also notes that Plaintiff stated that he was in the process of obtaining information.
4 The parties are only required to disclose documents that are presently in their possession,
5 custody, or control. (ECF No. 44 at 2.) To the extent that the parties come into possession of
6 documents in the future, they are required to make supplemental disclosures. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
7 26(e) (requiring a party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a) to supplement or correct its
8 disclosure or response in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the
9 disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information
10 has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in
Plaintiff has also filed two motions requesting an Order directing defense counsel to
13 participate in an early settlement conference by phone. (ECF Nos. 41, 47.) The Court
14 understands that Plaintiff is eager to enter into settlement negotiations. However, the Court
15 cannot force defense counsel to engage in those discussions. Settlement is a topic that will be
16 discussed at the mandatory scheduling conference in this case. Therefore, the Court must deny
17 Plaintiff’s motions at this time.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 46) is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff’s motions for a settlement conference (ECF Nos. 41, 47) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 8, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?