(PC) King v. Gant ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JERRY LEE KING, Case No. 1:23-cv-00640-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO EXCHANGE DOCUMENTS 11 v. 12 GANT, et al., 13 Defendant(s). 14 15 Jerry Lee King (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 16 in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 On August 9, 2023, the Court issued an order requiring the parties to file scheduling and 18 discovery statements. (ECF No. 16). The parties have now filed their statements. (ECF Nos. 19 20 & 22). 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 claim, including any 602s, 7 Form 22s, Health Care Grievances, and responses from the appeals 8 office. 9 b. All of Plaintiff’s medical records related to the incident(s) and/or 10 condition(s) at issue in the case. 11 c. CDCR Form 7219, Medical Report of Injury or Unusual Occurrence, 12 created for Plaintiff on August 17, 2016. 13 d. Witness statements and evidence that were generated from 14 investigation(s) related to the event(s) at issue in the complaint, such as 15 an investigation stemming from the processing of Plaintiff’s 16 grievance(s).4 17 e. Video recordings and photographs related to the incident(s) described in 18 Plaintiff’s, including any photographs of Plaintiff taken following the use 19 of force incident giving rise to Plaintiff’s medical needs at issue in this 20 21 22 3 Defense counsel is requested to obtain these documents from Plaintiff’s institution(s) of confinement. If 23 defense counsel is unable to do so, defense counsel should inform Plaintiff that a third party subpoena is required. 4 See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 94-95 (2006) (“[P]roper exhaustion improves the quality of those 24 prisoner suits that are eventually filed because proper exhaustion often results in the creation of an administrative record that is helpful to the court. When a grievance is filed shortly after the event giving rise to the grievance, 25 witnesses can be identified and questioned while memories are still fresh, and evidence can be gathered and preserved.”). 26 The Court notes that Defendants only need to produce documents such as a Confidential Appeal Inquiry or a Use of Force Critique to the extent those documents contain witness statements related to the incident(s) 27 alleged in the complaint and/or evidence related to the incident(s) alleged in the complaint that will not be provided to Plaintiff separately. 28 ee II IE I IRI I EIEIO II ED EE 1 case.>° 2 2. If any party obtains documents and/or other evidence described above later in 3 the case from a third party, that party shall provide all other parties with copies 4 of the documents and/or evidence within thirty days. 5 3. Parties do not need to produce documents or evidence that they have already 6 produced. 7 4. Parties do not need to produce documents or evidence that were provided to 8 them by the opposing party. 9 5. Parties may object to producing any of the above-listed documents and/or 10 evidence. Objections shall be filed with the Court and served on all other parties 11 within sixty days from the date of service of this order (or within thirty days of 12 receiving additional documents and/or evidence). The objection should include 13 the basis for not providing the documents and/or evidence. If Defendant(s) 14 object based on the official information privilege, Defendant(s) shall follow the 15 procedures described in the Court’s scheduling order. Ifa party files an 16 objection, all other parties have fourteen days from the date the objection is filed 17 to file a response. If any party files a response to an objection, the Court will 18 issue a ruling on the objection. 19 0 IT IS SO ORDERED. 71 Dated: _ October 4, 2023 [sf ey — 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 > In their scheduling and discovery statement, Defendants assert that they “are not aware of any photographs or video recordings at this time, but reserve the right to utilize such recordings or photographs should 27 || they later be found to exist.” (ECF No. 22, p. 3). 2g olf Plaintiff is not allowed possess, or is unable to play, video recording(s), defense counsel shall work with staff at Plaintiff’s institution of confinement to ensure that Plaintiff is able to view the video recording(s).