James v. Oakland Police Department et al

Filing 82

ORDER FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT DEFENDANTS TO SUPPLEMENT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND SUBMIT EXHIBITS (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 12/11/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DENNIS LAMAR JAMES,

Case No. 13-cv-00011-SI

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, et
al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants.

ORDER FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
DEFENDANTS TO SUPPLEMENT
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
AND SUBMIT EXHIBITS
Re: Dkt. No. 79

12
13

On October 30, 2015, the court ordered plaintiff and the law enforcement defendants to file

14

case management statements no later than November 20, 2015, and, in those case management

15

statements to “(1) describe the discovery the parties have done; (2) describe the discovery they

16

plan to do; and (3) propose a discovery schedule and discovery cut-off date.” Docket No. 74 at 4.

17

The law enforcement defendants’ case management statement (Docket No. 79) was four days late

18

and incomplete.1 These deficiencies are noteworthy because the court had just pointed out that

19

counsel for law enforcement defendants failed to comply with an earlier court order to inform the

20

court of their intent not to file a dispositive motion. See Docket No. 74 at 3.

21
22
23
24
1

25
26
27
28

The portion of the law enforcement defendants’ case management statement that purports
to provide the requested information states, in total: “Plaintiff recently served defendants with a
request for production of documents and interrogatories, to which Defendants will serve
responses. Defendants have withheld serving written discovery requests on Plaintiff due to his
incarceration and at times, mental incapacitation, throughout the course of this lawsuit. While
Defendants continue to explore their options for resolving his matter by dispositive motion, they
will move forward with litigation of this matter. Unfortunately, Plaintiff’s changeable mental
condition has presented challenges concerning how best to move forward.” Docket No. 79 at 2.

1

Due to the absence of some of the requested information in their case management

2

statement, the law enforcement defendants must file and serve another case management statement

3

no later than January 11, 2016. Their supplemental case management statement must actually

4

describe the discovery they plan to do. For example, it should state who/what they plan to

5

subpoena, who they plan to depose, whether they plan to request a production of documents,

6

whether they plan to propound interrogatories, and whether they plan to propound requests for

7

admissions.

8

schedule and a discovery cut-off date.

Their supplemental case management statement also must propose a discovery

In addition, the law enforcement defendants must attach as an exhibit to their supplemental

10

case management statement a complete copy of the Oakland Police Department’s file relating to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

the February 19, 2012 arrest, detention and jailing of plaintiff. In case there is any doubt, the law

12

enforcement defendants also must serve a copy of that case management statement with the

13

exhibit on plaintiff and on the doctor-defendants.

14

The court is mindful that plaintiff’s mental status and housing at Napa State Hospital

15

present some challenges, but that is no reason for the law enforcement defendants to fail to follow

16

court orders. The law enforcement defendants should treat this case like other pro se prisoner

17

litigation, and may bring to the court’s attention specific problems relating to plaintiff’s mental

18

status and housing if such problems arise. The court can consider scheduling adjustments as the

19

need arises, but the case generally should be moving toward resolution, rather than stalling due to

20

potential issues that defendants think might exist for the plaintiff.

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 11, 2015
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2