(PC) Thornberry v. Tate ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL LEE THORNBERRY, Case No. 1:19-cv-00825-AWI-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER FOLLOWING INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 13 v. 14 HAROLD TATE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Daniel Lee Thornberry (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which includes a state 19 law claim. On November 10, 2020, the Court held an Initial Scheduling Conference 20 (“Conference”). Plaintiff telephonically appeared on his own behalf. Counsel David 21 Yengoyan telephonically appeared on behalf of Defendant. 22 During the Conference, and with the benefit of the scheduling conference statements 23 provided by the parties, the Court and the parties discussed relevant documents in this case and 24 their possible locations. In addition to opening discovery generally, the Court ordered that 25 certain documents that are central to the dispute be promptly produced. 26 Therefore, in an effort to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of this 27 /// 28 eee eee OEE IE IRENE IIE II IIE ESE ISIE ES EE 1 || action,' and after consideration of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1),” IT IS ORDERED? 2 || that the parties have thirty days from the date of service of this order to serve the opposing 3 || party with a copy of Plaintiff's medical records from January 1, 2018, through July 31, 2020, 4 || that are in their possession, custody, or control. If any party receives additional medical 5 records, including from third parties, that party shall provide those documents to the opposing 6 || party within thirty days from the date of receipt. Parties do not need to produce documents 7 have already provided or documents provided to them by the opposing party. 8 9 || fT IS SO ORDERED. 10 : . Dated: _November 10,2020 0 _/sJ=_Svey —— 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 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.”). 13 > 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 does not prevent a court from requiring by order or local rule that the parties disclosed additional information 28 1! without a discovery request.”).