(PC) Callins v. Stainer ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLTON R. CALLINS, Case No. 1:19-cv-00431-DAD-EPG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER COMPELLING PRODUCTION OF 13 CERTAIN DOCUMENTS, SETTING v. DEADLINE TO SERVE DEFENDANT C. 14 ZAMORA, AND SETTING DEADLINE TO J. ESCUTIA, et al., NOTIFY COURT OF INTEREST IN 15 Defendants. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 16 (ECF NO. 2) 17 18 19 Carlton R. Callins (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 20 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 11, 2019, the Court held an 21 Initial Scheduling Conference (“Conference”). Plaintiff telephonically appeared on his own 22 behalf. Counsel Robert Perkins and Jon Allin telephonically appeared on behalf of Defendants. 23 During the Conference, and with the benefit of a scheduling conference statement 24 provided by the Defendants, the Court and the parties discussed relevant documents in this case. 25 In addition to opening discovery generally, the Court ordered that certain documents that are 26 central to the dispute be promptly produced. The Court also discussed Plaintiff’s failure to serve 27 Defendant C. Zamora and indicated that it would set a deadline for Plaintiff to accomplish service 28 on C. Zamora. Finally, the Court discussed a deadline for the parties to alert the Court as to 1 whether they would like to participate in a settlement conference. 2 Therefore, to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of this action1, and after 3 consideration of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1)2, IT IS ORDERED that3: 4 1. Each party shall, within 30 days of the date of this order, produce to the opposing 5 party(s) all 602 grievance documents and responses related to the incident from which 6 this suit arises that are within the party’s possession, custody, or control, as well as the 7 Rules Violation Report related to that incident and any decision related to the Rules 8 Violation Report; 9 2. Plaintiff has until January 20, 2020, to submit accurate and sufficient information to 10 identify Defendant C. Zamora so that the US Marshal can effect service of the 11 summons and complaint. If Plaintiff failed to identify C. Zamora by this time, the 12 Court will recommend dismissal of claims against C. Zamora without prejudice; and 13 \\\ 14 \\\ 15 1 See, e.g., United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 508–09 (9th Cir. 2008) (“We begin with the principle 16 that the district court is charged with effectuating the speedy and orderly administration of justice. There is universal acceptance in the federal courts that, in carrying out this mandate, a district court has the authority to enter pretrial 17 case management and discovery orders designed to ensure that the relevant issues to be tried are identified, that the parties have an opportunity to engage in appropriate discovery and that the parties are adequately and timely prepared 18 so that the trial can proceed efficiently and intelligibly.”). 19 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, 20 considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether 21 the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Ibid. 22 3 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, “[a]t any pretrial conference, the court may consider and 23 take appropriate action on the following matters: . . . controlling and scheduling discovery, including orders affecting disclosures and discovery under Rule 26 and Rules 29 through 37” and “facilitating in other ways the just, speedy, 24 and inexpensive disposition of the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(F). See also Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery.”). Federal Rule of Civil 25 Procedure 16 vests the district court with early control over cases “toward a process of judicial management that embraces the entire pretrial phase, especially motions and discovery.” In re Arizona, 528 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming district court’s requiring that prison officials prepare a Martinez report to give detailed factual 26 information involving a prisoner’s suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and stating “district courts have wide latitude in controlling discovery.”). See also Advisory Committee Notes to 1993 Amendment to Federal Rules of Civil 27 Procedure regarding Rule 26(a) (“The enumeration in Rule 26(a) of items to be disclosed does not prevent a court from requiring by order or local rule that the parties disclosed additional information without a discovery request.”). 28 1 3. □□ □□ before March 13, 2020, Defendants are instructed to email Courtroom Deputy 2 Michelle Rooney at mrooney @caed.uscourts.gov., to alert the Court as to whether the 3 parties will seek a settlement conference. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6} Dated: _ September 12, 2019 [sf ee ey 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28