(PC) Turner v. Zepp ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 VINCENT TURNER, Case No. 1:20-cv-00184-AWI-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER FOLLOWING INITIAL 12 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE v. 13 ANDREW ZEPP, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff Vincent Turner (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding proceeding pro se 19 and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On 20 February 1, 2021, the Court held an Initial Scheduling Conference. Plaintiff telephonically 21 appeared on his own behalf. Defendants Andrew Zepp and Khaled A. Tawansy failed to 22 appear. 23 Based upon the scheduling conference statements provided by Plaintiff and Defendant 24 Andrew Zepp, in an effort to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of this 25 26 27 28 1 eee nnn nn on nnn nnn nnn ne OI I EO 1 || action,' and after consideration of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1),” IT IS ORDERED? 2 || that: 3 1. If any party receives documents regarding this case from a third party, including but 4 not limited to San Joaquin Community Hospital, Raymond Renaissance Surgery 5 Center, Golden State Eye Clinic, and/or Riverside University Health System, that 6 party must promptly, and no later than fourteen (14) days from receipt, provide 7 those documents to all other parties; and 8 2. Parties do not need to produce documents they have already provided, documents 9 provided to them by the opposing party, or documents that the opposing party 10 already has. 11 D IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ll Dated: _February 2, 2021 [Je heey —— 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 || ——— 16 ! See, e.g., United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 508-09 (9th Cir. 2008) (“We begin with the principle that the district court is charged with effectuating the speedy and orderly administration of justice. There 17 |] is universal acceptance in the federal courts that, in carrying out this mandate, a district court has the authority to enter pretrial case management and discovery orders designed to ensure that the relevant issues to be tried are 18 || identified, that the parties have an opportunity to engage in appropriate discovery and that the parties are adequately and timely prepared so that the trial can proceed efficiently and intelligibly.”). 19 > 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 21 || whether 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 take appropriate action on the following matters: . . . controlling and scheduling discovery, including orders 23 affecting disclosures and discovery under Rule 26 and Rules 29 through 37” and “facilitating in other ways the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(F). See also Little v. City of 24 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery.”). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 vests the district court with early control over cases “toward a process of 25 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 26 report to give detailed factual 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 27 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding Rule 26(a) (“The enumeration in Rule 26(a) of items to be disclosed 2g does not prevent a court from requiring by order or local rule that the parties disclosed additional information without a discovery request.”).