Metcalfe v. State of California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, et al

Filing 25

ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on October 25, 2012. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

RONALD METCALFE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
)
CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION;
)
SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON (“SVSP”))
WARDEN A. HEDGPETH; FORMER SVSP )
WARDEN M. EVANS; FORMER SVSP CHIEF )
DEPUTY WARDEN G. NEOTTI; FORMER
)
SVSP CHIEF DEPUTY WARDEN G. LEWIS; )
CORRECTIONAL TRAINING FACILITY
)
(“CTF”) WARDEN R. GROUNDS; FORMER )
CTF WARDEN(A) C. NOLL; and DOES 1
)
THROUGH 50 INCLUSIVE,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 5:12-CV-1445-LHK
ORDER CONTINUING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

The parties have submitted a Joint Case Management Conference Statement (“Statement”).

22

ECF No. 22. In the Statement, the parties state that the factual issues raised in Plaintiff Ronald

23

Metcalfe’s Complaint are “extraordinarily complex, both factually and legally….” Id. Plaintiffs

24

further state that they have not had an opportunity to exchange their initial disclosures and do not

25

anticipate being able to exchange their initial disclosures in advance of the October 31, 2012 Case

26

Management Conference. Id. The parties also state that they believe it would be “productive to

27

discuss with their principles… whether or not a form of ADR might be productive….” Id. The

28

parties request that they be provided with an additional 60-90 days to allow them “to come to an
1
Case No.: 12-CV-1445
ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

1

agreement regarding ADR, early discovery efforts, timing of initial disclosures, and to come up

2

with a discovery plan, so that they [may] submit a more informed CMC statement to [the] Court.”

3

Id.

4

While the Court recognizes that the Case Management Conference was scheduled on short

5

notice, a 60 to 90 day extension would unnecessarily postpone the initial Case Management

6

Conference. This case was filed in March 2012. Defendants filed their answers in mid-August and

7

early September 2012. Moreover, as to the parties’ statement that they are working to reach

8

agreement on the timing of initial disclosures, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 governs the

9

timing of initial disclosures, and the Court disfavors deviation from the Federal Rules.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Nonetheless, based on the shortness of the notice of the Case Management Conference, the Court

11

believes some extension is appropriate. Accordingly, the Case Management Conference is hereby

12

CONTINUED from October 31, 2012 to November 20, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. The parties’ Case

13

Management Conference Statement is due November 13, 2012.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: October 25, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 12-CV-1445
ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE