(PC) Douglas v. Shirley ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 ROGER DOUGLAS, Case No. 1:23-cv-00653-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING STATEMENTS FROM PARTIES REGARDING 11 SCHEDULE AND DISCOVERY 12 v. THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 13 14 HEATHER SHIRLEY, et. al., 15 Defendants. 16 The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and has ordered the case to proceed. (ECF 17 No. 9.) Parties have been ordered to confer and consider participating in an early scheduling 18 conference. (ECF No. 16.) As directed by the Court, Defendants timely filed a notice opting out 19 of the early settlement conference. (ECF No. 19.) The case will now proceed to litigation. Before 20 scheduling this case, however, the Court will require each party to submit a statement regarding 21 the schedule and discovery matters. 22 The statements regarding the schedule and discovery shall be filed within thirty days from 23 the date of service of this order. They should be filed with the Court, titled “SCHEDULING AND 24 DISCOVERY STATEMENT,” and include the name of the party filing the statement. They shall 25 address all of the following issues: 26 i. A brief summary of the parties’ claims and/or defenses. 27 28 1 ii. The name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each witness, 2 besides expert witnesses, the party may call at trial. 3 iii. A description by category and location of all documents the party may use at 4 trial. 5 iv. Whether any third parties, other than Plaintiff’s institution of confinement, are 6 likely to have relevant documents. 7 v. Whether the party intends to use expert witnesses. 8 vi. If a settlement conference has not occurred, when the party will be prepared to 9 participate in a settlement conference. 10 Defendant(s)’ Scheduling and Discovery Statement shall also address all of the following 11 issues: 12 vii. Whether a third-party subpoena directed at Plaintiff’s institution of 13 confinement will be necessary to obtain relevant documents. 14 viii. Whether Defendant(s) intend to challenge the issue of exhaustion and, if so, 15 when Defendant(s) will be ready to file a motion for summary judgment 16 regarding the issue of exhaustion. 17 ix. Whether witness statements and/or evidence were generated from 18 investigation(s) related to the event(s) at issue in the complaint, such as an 19 investigation stemming from the processing of Plaintiff’s grievance(s).1 20 x. Whether there are any video recordings or photographs related to the 21 incident(s) at issue in the complaint, including video recordings and 22 photographs of Plaintiff taken following the incident(s). 23 xi. Whether Defendant(s) intend to argue that Defendant(s) are not properly 24 named because they are not the individual(s) responsible for the action(s) 25 26 1 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.”). 1 described in the complaint (i.e., someone else did or is responsible for the 2 action(s) alleged in the complaint). 3 Finally, any party may also include any information that the party believes would assist in 4 | discovery and/or scheduling the case. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7| Dated: _November 15, 2023 [sf ey 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28