(PC) Williams v. Adams et al

Filing 54

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENTRELL WILLIAMS, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, vs. 1:19-cv-01058-ADA-GSA-PC ORDER IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION (ECF No. 53.) ADAMS, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 19 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 REMEDIES 20 21 22 23 Kentrell Williams (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding with counsel in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 24 On January 17, 2023, Defendants Kendrick, Sherwood and Busby filed a request for 25 clarification of the Court’s order issued on January 6, 2023. (ECF No. 53.) Specifically, 26 Defendants seek clarification of whether the Court granted Plaintiff’s December 30, 2022 request 27 to conduct fact discovery, or granted the parties an extension of time to conduct only limited- 28 purpose discovery on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. 1 1 Defense counsel declares that she interpreted Plaintiff’s December 30, 2022 request as 2 seeking an extension of all fact discovery until March 5, 2023, whereas the Court’s January 6, 3 2023 order grants Plaintiff’s request but also specifically states that only discovery limited to the 4 issue of exhaustion is extended. (Declaration of Kandice Jung, ECF No. 53 at 3 ¶¶2, 3.) Defense 5 counsel explains that as of the date of the request for clarification, Plaintiff has propounded one 6 set of requests for production of documents, and Defendants’ responses will necessarily change 7 if the Court has only extended limited discovery on the issue of exhaustion. (Id. at 3 ¶5.) 8 The Court regrets any ambiguity in its January 6, 2023 order. The order did not grant 9 Plaintiff’s request to conduct all fact discovery. The January 6, 2023 order granted Plaintiff’s 10 request for extension of time until March 5, 2023 in which to file an opposition to Defendants’ 11 motion for summary judgment, and granted Defendants an extension of time to file a reply to 12 Plaintiff’s opposition until 20 days from the date of filing of the opposition. To be clear, the 13 January 6, 2023 order did not grant Plaintiff’s request to conduct fact discovery at this stage of 14 the proceedings. The order only allowed the parties to conduct limited-purpose discovery on the 15 issues of exhaustion of administrative remedies pending the parties’ deadlines to file their 16 opposition and reply. 17 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 18, 2023 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?