(PC) Ortega v. United States of America ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ALBERT ORTEGA, Case No. 1:19-cv-00999-NONE-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND 11 v. PARTIES TO EXCHANGE DOCUMENTS 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Albert Ortega (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 16 in this action. 17 On November 6, 2020, the Court issued an order setting an initial scheduling 18 conference, requiring the parties to exchange initial disclosures, and requiring the parties to file 19 scheduling conference statements. (ECF No. 31). On the day the scheduling conference was 20 supposed to be held, Plaintiff’s institution of confinement indicated that it could not make 21 Plaintiff available for the conference. Accordingly, the Court vacated the conference. (ECF 22 No. 37). 23 After reviewing this case, including Defendant’s scheduling report, the Court finds that 24 it can schedule this case without holding a scheduling conference.1 The Court will issue a 25 separate order that opens discovery and includes the schedule for this case. 26 Additionally, Plaintiff did not file a scheduling conference statement, and according to 27 1 While the Court is not holding a scheduling conference at this time, the Court may set other conferences 28 or hearings in the future. 1 Defendant, Plaintiff did not provide Defendant with his initial disclosures (ECF No. 35, p. 2). 2 The Court does not need a scheduling conference statement from Plaintiff at this time, but will 3 require Plaintiff to provide Defendant with his initial disclosures within thirty days. 4 Finally, in an effort to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of this 5 action,2 and after consideration of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1),3 the Court will 6 direct that certain documents that are central to the dispute be promptly produced.4 7 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of service of this order to serve 9 Defendant’s counsel with his initial disclosures. As discussed in the Court’s 10 prior order (ECF No. 31), Plaintiff shall provide Defendant with “[t]he name 11 and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to 12 have discoverable information−along with the subjects of that information−that 13 [Plaintiff] may use to support [his] claims or defenses, unless the use would be 14 solely for impeachment.” (Id. at 3). Plaintiff shall also provide Defendant with 15 a “copy−or a description by category and location−of all documents, 16 electronically stored information, and tangible things that [Plaintiff] has in [his] 17 possession, custody, or control and may use to support [his] claims or defenses, 18 unless the use would be solely for impeachment.” (Id.).5 19 2. The parties have thirty days from the date of service of this order to serve the 20 2 See, e.g., United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 508–09 (9th Cir. 2008) (“We begin with the 21 principle 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 22 enter pretrial 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 23 adequately and timely prepared so that the trial can proceed efficiently and intelligibly.”). 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any 24 nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative 25 access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 26 “Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. 4 Advisory Committee Notes to 1993 Amendment to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding Rule 27 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 disclose additional information without a discovery request.”). 28 5 If Plaintiff has already provided Defendant with his initial disclosures he does not need to re-serve them. enn en ne □□□ nn non nn nn EO I IIS EO OO 1 opposing party with Plaintiff's medical records from July 20, 2018, through July 2 20, 2019. Parties do not need to produce documents they have already provided 3 or documents that were provided to them by the opposing party. 4 3. If any party obtains medical records from another entity, that party shall 5 promptly produce a copy of those documents to the opposing party. Parties do 6 not need to produce documents they have already provided or documents that 7 were provided to them by the opposing party. 8 4. Defendant has thirty days from the date of service of this order to produce the 9 statement from Officer Michael Fontes that Bureau of Prisons staff investigating 10 Plaintiff's administrative claim obtained. If any other evidence or witness 11 statements were generated from an investigation into the grievance filed by 12 Plaintiff related to the allegations in the complaint, Defendant must promptly 13 provide those documents to Plaintiff or submit them for in camera review.° 14 5. Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of service of this order to provide 15 Defendant with any witness statements that he has obtained. 16 6. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order (or within thirty days of 17 receiving additional documents), any party may object to providing the 18 documents listed above. If Defendant objects based on the official information 19 privilege, Defendant must provide the documents to the Court for in camera 20 review. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: _ February 12, 2021 [see heey — 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 6 The procedures for submitting documents for in camera review are included in the scheduling order.