(PC) Williams v. Adams et al
ORDER in Response to 53 Defendants' Request for Clarification and ORDER Clarifying that the Court's January 6, 2023 Order Did Not Extend Time for the Parties to Conduct All Fact Discovery at this Stage of the Proceedings, But Only to Conduct Limited-Purpose Discovery on the Issue of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/18/2023. (Lawrence, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
(ECF No. 53.)
ADAMS, et al.,
ORDER CLARIFYING THAT THE
COURT’S JANUARY 6, 2023 ORDER DID
NOT EXTEND TIME FOR THE PARTIES
TO CONDUCT ALL FACT DISCOVERY
AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS,
BUT ONLY TO CONDUCT LIMITEDPURPOSE DISCOVERY ON THE ISSUE OF
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
Kentrell Williams (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding with counsel in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On January 17, 2023, Defendants Kendrick, Sherwood and Busby filed a request for
clarification of the Court’s order issued on January 6, 2023. (ECF No. 53.) Specifically,
Defendants seek clarification of whether the Court granted Plaintiff’s December 30, 2022 request
to conduct fact discovery, or granted the parties an extension of time to conduct only limited-
purpose discovery on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Defense counsel declares that she interpreted Plaintiff’s December 30, 2022 request as
seeking an extension of all fact discovery until March 5, 2023, whereas the Court’s January 6,
2023 order grants Plaintiff’s request but also specifically states that only discovery limited to the
issue of exhaustion is extended. (Declaration of Kandice Jung, ECF No. 53 at 3 ¶¶2, 3.) Defense
counsel explains that as of the date of the request for clarification, Plaintiff has propounded one
set of requests for production of documents, and Defendants’ responses will necessarily change
if the Court has only extended limited discovery on the issue of exhaustion. (Id. at 3 ¶5.)
The Court regrets any ambiguity in its January 6, 2023 order. The order did not grant
Plaintiff’s request to conduct all fact discovery. The January 6, 2023 order granted Plaintiff’s
request for extension of time until March 5, 2023 in which to file an opposition to Defendants’
motion for summary judgment, and granted Defendants an extension of time to file a reply to
Plaintiff’s opposition until 20 days from the date of filing of the opposition. To be clear, the
January 6, 2023 order did not grant Plaintiff’s request to conduct fact discovery at this stage of
the proceedings. The order only allowed the parties to conduct limited-purpose discovery on the
issues of exhaustion of administrative remedies pending the parties’ deadlines to file their
opposition and reply.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 18, 2023
/s/ Gary S. Austin
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?