Bell v. Lee et al

Filing 117

ORDER RE: (1) STAY AND (2) DISCOVERY DISPUTES (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 5/12/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 VINCENT KEITH BELL, Plaintiff, 8 ORDER RE (1) STAY AND (2) DISCOVERY DISPUTES 9 v. 10 KEN LEE, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 94, 111, 113, 114 Defendants. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 13-cv-05820-SI 12 13 On May 12, 2017, the Court heard argument on whether this case should be stayed in light 14 of the pending criminal proceedings against plaintiff, in which he is currently unrepresented. For 15 the reasons stated on the record, the Court finds it appropriate to enter a stay at this time. The 16 parties shall appear for a status conference on September 22, 2017. One week prior, they shall 17 file a joint statement regarding the status of the criminal case and whether there is a continued 18 need for a stay. 19 The Court also ordered the parties to meet and confer on the pending statements of 20 discovery disputes (Dkt. Nos. 111, 113, 114) and report back. After their meet and confer, the 21 parties stated their agreements on the record for several of the discovery issues. For the remaining 22 issues, the Court ORDERS, as stated on the record, the following: 23  Site Inspection: In addition to the parties’ agreement regarding the site inspection, 24 defendants shall allow plaintiff’s counsel to inspect the monitor(s) at issue, but 25 plaintiff’s counsel may not take photographs. If a need for photographs arises after 26 the inspection, plaintiff may raise the issue again. 27 28  Medical Records and Costs of Care: In regards to plaintiff’s medical records and the costs of his medical care (Plaintiff’s RFP Set 5, No. 1; RFP Set 6 Nos. 1-2), 1 plaintiff shall serve a subpoena on the appropriate custodians of the sought 2 materials. If plaintiff is unsatisfied with the results, he may raise this issue again 3 after the stay. 4  Depositions: Plaintiff’s request to reopen defendants’ depositions is denied. 5  Affirmative Defenses: Defendants must respond to plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 1 of Set 3 regarding their affirmative defenses. 6 7  Witness Identification: Defendants shall respond to plaintiff’s RFP No. 8 of Set 5 8 with a list of names of individuals who were present at the time of the underlying 9 incident in the areas described on the record. They need not produce any other 10 documents in response to this RFP at this time. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Responses and materials produced shall be designated in accordance with the parties’ protective 12 order as they agreed on the record. 13 14 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 12, 2017 ______________________________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 18 19 20 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?