(PC) L.C. Cunningham v. Martinez ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 L.C. CUNNINGHAM, Case No. 1:19-cv-01508-AWI-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO EXCHANGE DOCUMENTS 11 v. ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 12 M. MARTINEZ, et al., PROVIDE INITIAL DISCLOSURES 13 Defendant(s). 14 15 L.C. Cunningham (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 16 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 On November 25, 2020, the Court issued an order requiring the parties to file 18 scheduling conference statements. (ECF No. 43). The parties have now filed their statements. 19 (ECF Nos. 59 & 61). 20 The Court has reviewed this case and the parties’ statements. In an effort to secure the 21 just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of this action,1 the Court will direct that certain 22 documents that are central to the dispute be promptly produced.2 23 24 1 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 25 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 26 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.”). 27 2 Advisory Committee Notes to 1993 Amendment to Federal Rules of Civil 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 28 local rule that the parties disclose additional information without a discovery request.”). 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. Each party has sixty days from the date of service of this order to serve opposing 3 parties, or their counsel, if represented, with copies of the following documents 4 and/or evidence that they have in their possession, custody, or control, to the 5 extent the parties have not already done so:3 6 a. Documents regarding exhaustion of Plaintiff’s claims, including 602s, 7 Form 22s, and responses from the appeals office. 8 b. Witness statements and evidence that were generated from 9 investigation(s) related to the event(s) at issue in the complaint, such as 10 an investigation stemming from the processing of Plaintiff’s 11 grievance(s).4 12 2. Parties do not need to produce documents they have already produced or 13 documents that were provided to them by the opposing party. 14 3. Parties may object to producing any of the above-listed documents and/or 15 evidence. Objections shall be filed with the Court and served on all other parties 16 within sixty days from the date of service of this order (or within thirty days of 17 receiving additional documents and/or evidence). The objection should include 18 the basis for not providing the documents and/or evidence. If Defendant(s) 19 object based on the official information privilege, Defendant(s) shall follow the 20 procedures described in the Court’s scheduling order. If a party files an 21 objection, all other parties have fourteen days from the date the objection is filed 22 to file a response. If any party files a response to an objection, the Court will 23 issue a ruling on the objection. 24 25 3 Defense counsel is requested to obtain these documents from Plaintiff’s institution(s) of confinement. If defense counsel is unable to do so, defense counsel should inform Plaintiff that a third party subpoena is required. 26 4 See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 94-95 (2006) (“[P]roper exhaustion improves the quality of those prisoner suits that are eventually filed because proper exhaustion often results in the creation of an administrative 27 record that is helpful to the court. When a grievance is filed shortly after the event giving rise to the grievance, witnesses can be identified and questioned while memories are still fresh, and evidence can be gathered and 28 preserved.”). eee IO EEE II ISO EEO 1 Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of service of 2 || this order to serve Defendants’ counsel with his initial disclosures. As discussed in the Court’s 3 || prior order (ECF No. 43), Plaintiff shall provide Defendants with “[t]he name and, if known, 4 address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable 5 |) information—along with the subjects of that information—that [Plaintiff] may use to support 6 || [his] claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment.” (/d. at 3). Plaintiff 7 || shall also provide Defendants with a “copy—or a description by category and location—of all 8 documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that [Plaintiff] has in [his] 9 || possession, custody, or control and may use to support [his] claims or defenses, unless the use 10 || would be solely for impeachment.” (Id.).° 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘3 | Dated: _Marech 1, 2021 [sf ey — 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || om. > Tf Plaintiff has already provided Defendants with his initial disclosures he does not need to re-serve