Bell v. Williams et al

Filing 36

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION granting in part and denying in part 33 Administrative Motion. (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 2/27/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

VINCENT KEITH BELL,
Plaintiff,

8

11

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

v.

9
10

Case No. 18-cv-01245-SI

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 33

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
Plaintiff has filed an administrative motion requesting that the Court prohibit the parties from
14
seeking discovery before the April 10, 2020 initial case management conference, including
15

particularly a deposition of plaintiff noticed for March 6, 2020. Plaintiff’s counsel notes that he

16
entered his appearance on January 23, 2020, and states that he is out of the country until March 5.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Plaintiff’s counsel has also attached an email from defense counsel in which defense counsel offered
to cancel the March 6 deposition only on the condition that plaintiff’s counsel agree not to propound
any discovery until plaintiff’s deposition concluded, an offer that plaintiff’s counsel characterizes
as “unreasonable.”
Defendants oppose the motion, asserting inter alia that plaintiff’s counsel did not attempt to
meet and confer regarding this dispute, and that the Court’s October 11, 2019 Order of Service
authorized the commencement of discovery. Defendants accuse plaintiff’s counsel of stonewalling
defendants’ diligent efforts to take plaintiff’s deposition, and defendants also state that they need to
take plaintiff’s deposition before he is transferred to state custody, although it does not appear that
any such transfer is currently scheduled.1

27
28

1

Ms. Bers’ declaration states that “Mr. Bell is the defendant in an ongoing criminal case

1

In light of the procedural posture of this case, the Court finds that the appropriate course is

2

to stay all discovery until the April 10 case management conference. The Court’s October 11, 2019

3

order was issued when plaintiff was proceeding pro se and detained at San Francisco County Jail,

4

and the April 10 conference is the first scheduling conference that the Court will hold with counsel.

5

At the April 10 case management conference the Court will set an expeditious schedule for

6

discovery, including plaintiff’s deposition, as well as a schedule for dispositive motions and trial.

7

In advance of the April 10 case management conference, the parties are directed to meet and confer

8

in an effort to agree upon a protective order and a schedule for discovery, including a date for

9

plaintiff’s deposition.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Dated: February 27, 2020

______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

with a next hearing date on March 3, 2020[, and] If Mr. Bell is convicted of the pending charges,
given their severity and the likely length of his sentence, I expect that he will be transferred from
San Francisco’s custody into state custody.” Bers Decl. ¶ 3 (Dkt. No. 34-1).
2