Garcia v. City of Santa Clara et al

Filing 75

ORDER LIFTING STAY AND FOR CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENTS 73 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 5/12/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

DANIEL C. GARCIA
(CDCR # AM5700),

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11
12

ORDER LIFTING STAY AND FOR
CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENTS

Plaintiff,

9
10

No. C 10-2424 SI (pr)

v.
CITY OF SANTA CLARA; et al.,
Defendants.
/

13
14

This action was stayed on May 19, 2012 because of criminal cases pending against

15

plaintiff. Those cases eventually were resolved against plaintiff. Plaintiff now applies to lift the

16

stay in this action and defendants do not oppose the lifting of the stay. Accordingly, plaintiff's

17

application to lift the stay is GRANTED. (Docket # 73.) The stay is now LIFTED and the clerk

18

will REOPEN the action.

19

In order to move this action toward resolution, the parties may immediately resume their

20

discovery efforts. Plaintiff's request for the court to issue an order "establishing the parameters

21

for discovery," id. at 2, is rejected. The court generally is not involved in the discovery process

22

and only becomes involved when there is a dispute between the parties about discovery

23

responses. Discovery requests and responses normally are exchanged between the parties

24

without any copy being sent to the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) (listing discovery requests and

25

responses that "must not" be filed with the court until they are used in the proceeding or the court

26

orders otherwise). Only when the parties have a discovery dispute that they cannot resolve

27

among themselves should the parties even consider asking the court to intervene in the discovery

28

process. The court does not have enough time or resources to oversee all discovery, and
therefore requires that the parties present to it only their very specific disagreements, and only

1

after they have met and conferred in a good faith effort to try to resolve their disagreements.

2

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a); N. D. Cal. Local Rule 37. Where, as here, a litigant is incarcerated,

3

the meet-and-confer process may be done in writing.

4

Each party must file and serve a case management statement no later than June 13, 2014

5

indicating what discovery remains to be done, the amount of time needed for discovery, whether

6

any further motions will be filed, when they will be ready for trial, and an estimate of the number

7

of days needed for trial. The case management statements need not be jointly prepared.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 12, 2014

_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2