Stockmyer v. Admire et al

Filing 29

ORDER granting 27 motion to clarify order signed by Judge David W. Christel.***see order for details.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Donald Stockmyer, Prisoner ID: 217862)(MET)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

DONALD STOCKMYER,

11

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER

v.

13

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-05681-RBL-DWC

ADMIRE et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

The District Court has referred this action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, to United

17 States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
18 filed this civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19

In a letter sent to the Court, which the Court construes as a Motion for Clarification

20 (“Motion”), Plaintiff requests the Court clarify the parties’ obligations regarding the Court’s
21 Mandatory Pretrial Discovery and Scheduling Order (Dkt. 26, “Scheduling Order”). Dkt.27.
22 Defendants filed a response. Dkt. 28. The Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion and clarifies the
23 Scheduling Order as stated below.
24

ORDER - 1

1

Plaintiff seeks clarification regarding the necessity of the Scheduling Order, as the parties

2 have not yet had an opportunity to meet and confer. Dkt. 27 at 2. Because Plaintiff’s Amended
3 Complaint survived 28 U.S.C. § 1915 screening and Defendants filed an Answer, Dkt. 25, the
4 Court entered the Scheduling Order. Dkt. 26. See also Amended General Order 09-16,
5 Mandatory Pretrial Discovery in Pro Se Prisoner 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cases. Pursuant to Section
6 I(A)(8) of the Scheduling Order, a discovery conference is only necessary if the parties have a
7 dispute after making the disclosures required by the Scheduling Order. Dkt. 26 at 4. Thus, the
8 parties are not required to meet and confer unless a discovery dispute arises.
9

Plaintiff also states he does not have the funds to provide copies of all of the documents

10 he can obtain from the Department of Corrections. Dkt. 27 at 2-3. Section I(A)(1) of the
11 Scheduling Order requires Plaintiff to produce to Defendants, copies of all documents and other
12 materials which are in Plaintiff’s care, custody or control. Dkt. 26 at 1. Thus, Plaintiff is not
13 required to provide documents to Defendants which are in the care, custody, or control of the
14 Department of Corrections. See id. The Scheduling Order also provides that documents which
15 are in Plaintiff’s care, custody or control must be provided to Defendants with copies of the first
16 50 pages provided at the expense of the producing party. Dkt. 26 at 5. The requesting party must
17 pay for pages in excess of 50. Id. In the event Plaintiff does not have the funds to provide
18 copies, he may provide Defendants with a list of the documents in his possession, which
19 identifies each document by date, author, subject matter, and number of pages. Dkt. 26 at 5.
20

Dated this 25th day of January, 2017.

22

A

23

David W. Christel
United States Magistrate Judge

21

24

ORDER - 2