Frank Wells v. Gonzales

Filing 23

ORDER Following Initial Scheduling Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 2/12/19. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRANK WELLS,

12
13
14

Case No. 1:17-cv-01240-DAD-EPG (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER FOLLOWING INITIAL
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

v.
ROSA GONZALES,

15

Defendant.

16
17

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

18

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 6, 2019, the Court held

19

an Initial Scheduling Conference (“Conference”). Plaintiff telephonically appeared on his own

20

behalf. Counsel Steven Vong and Philip Arthur telephonically appeared on behalf of

21

Defendant.

22

During the Conference, and with the benefit of the scheduling conference statements

23

provided by the parties, the Court and the parties discussed relevant documents in this case and

24

their possible locations.

25
26

In an effort to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of this
action,1 and after consideration of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1),2 IT IS ORDERED3

27
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
1

28

1

1

that, as to the discovery requests Plaintiff served prior to the Conference, the 45-day period for

2

Defendant to respond starts running as of February 6, 2019. Defendant shall file a revised response

3

within the 45-day period to any discovery requests she already responded to.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 12, 2019

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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.
3
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.”). See also Advisory Committee Notes to 1993 Amendment to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding Rule 26(a) (“The enumeration in Rule 26(a) of items to be disclosed
does not prevent a court from requiring by order or local rule that the parties disclosed additional information
without a discovery request.”).
2