Davis v. Walmart Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT DONALD DAVIS, Case No. 1:22-cv-01381-ADA-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY 13 v. OBLIGATIONS 14 WALMART INC. et al., (Doc. 27) 15 Defendant. 16 17 On May 11, 2023, the Court received an email request from counsel for Defendant to 18 convene a conference with the parties because counsel for Plaintiff reportedly had completely 19 failed to respond to Defendant’s written discovery demands. Counsel for Plaintiff responded to 20 Defendant’s email inquiry by stating, “we are continuing to work on responses. We will work to 21 get these to you in the next 7 to 8 days.” Thereafter, on May 15, 2023, Defendant filed a 22 “Statement re: Discovery Disagreement” in which it requested a Court conference to resolve the 23 parties’ discovery disputes. (Doc. 24). The Court scheduled a status conference and ordered 24 Plaintiff to file a response to Defendant’s report of the discovery disputes. (Doc. 25). Plaintiff 25 timely filed his response. (Doc. 26). 26 On May 24, 2023, the Court convened via Zoom videoconference to address the parties’ 27 discovery disputes. Attorney Arturo T. Salinas appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and Attorney Theodore Peters appeared on behalf of Defendant. (Doc. 27). During the conference, the Court 1 identified several deficiencies in Mr. Salinas’s discovery practices: 2 * First, despite representing to the Court in the parties’ joint scheduling report filed March 3 21, 2023, that Plaintiff would “serve his Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures prior to” the scheduling 4 conference held March 28, 2023 (Doc. 15 at p. 6), Mr. Salinas confirmed that he still has not 5 served Rule 26 disclosures. 6 * Second, notwithstanding that Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s written discovery 7 demands are overdue, Mr. Salinas confirmed he has not yet completed serving responses. 8 * Third, notwithstanding that nonexpert discovery has been open for approximately two 9 months (see Doc. 17), Mr. Salinas confirmed he has not yet served on Defendant any written 10 discovery demands on behalf of Plaintiff. 11 When asked by the Court during the conference to explain these deficiencies, Mr. Salinas 12 explained that he was “behind in discovery on all my matters” and that he had only one legal 13 assistant for support. 14 District courts enter scheduling orders in actions to “limit the time to join other parties, 15 amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3). Once 16 entered, a scheduling order “controls the course of the action unless the court modifies it.” Fed. R 17 Civ. P. 16(d). Scheduling orders are intended to alleviate case management problems. Johnson 18 v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). “A scheduling order is not a 19 frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without 20 peril.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). 21 Given Mr. Salinas’s admitted deficiencies in complying with his discovery obligations, 22 the Court shall order Plaintiff to correct the deficiencies and undertake discovery in a manner 23 consistent with completing discovery within the time requested by the parties and provided by the 24 Court in the scheduling order. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 26 1. On or before May 26, 2023, Plaintiff shall serve his initial disclosures required by 27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1); 1 serve his complete responses to Defendant’s pending written discovery demands; 2 and 3 3, On or before June 9, 2023, Plaintiff shall serve his written discovery demands. 4 Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions. 5 | IT IS SO ORDERED. ° | Dated: _May 24, 2023 | hr 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28