Gary Ronnell Perkins v. Judith Holmes, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 24, 2025
• Docket: 1:22-cv-01607
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 GARY RONNELL PERKINS, Case No. 1:23-cv-01607-JLT-EPG (PC)

10 Plaintiff,

11 v. DISCOVERY ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO EXCHANGE 12 JUDITH HOLMES, et al., DOCUMENTS

13 Defendants. 14 15 To secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of this action,1 the Court will 16 direct that certain documents that are central to the dispute be promptly produced.2 17 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 18 1. Each party has sixty days from the date of service of this order to serve opposing 19 parties, or their counsel, if represented, with copies of the following documents 20 and/or evidence if they have them in their possession, custody, or control, to the 21 extent these documents exist, are relevant, and the parties have not already done

22 1 See, e.g., United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 508–09 (9th Cir. 2008) (“We begin with 23 the 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 24 court has the authority to enter pretrial case management and discovery orders designed to ensure that 25 the relevant issues to be tried are 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 26 and intelligibly.”). 2 Advisory Committee Notes to 1993 Amendment to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding 27 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 disclose additional information without a discovery 28 request.”). 1 1 so. Defense counsel is requested to obtain these documents from Plaintiff’s 2 institution(s) of confinement. If defense counsel is unable to do so, defense 3 counsel should inform Plaintiff that a third-party subpoena is required. This 4 order applies to all documents including confidential documents. Moreover, the 5 parties are required to produce these documents, or lodge objections as 6 described below, without awaiting a discovery request. 7 a. Documents regarding exhaustion of Plaintiff’s claims, including 602s, 8 Form 22s, and responses from the appeals, if any. 9 b. Witness statements and evidence that were generated from 10 investigation(s) related to the event(s) at issue in the complaint, such as 11 an investigation stemming from the processing of Plaintiff’s 12 grievance(s), if any.3 13 c. Plaintiff’s medical records related to the incident(s) and/or condition(s) 14 at issue in the case, if any. 15 d. Documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that 16 the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may 17 use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for 18 impeachment, if any. 19 2. If any party obtains documents and/or other evidence described above later in 20 the case (including, but not limited to, documents and/or other evidence from a 21 third party), that party shall provide all other parties with copies of the 22 documents and/or evidence within thirty days. The failure of a party to comply

23 3 See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 94–95 (2006) (“[P]roper exhaustion improves the quality 24 of those prisoner suits that are eventually filed because proper exhaustion often results in the creation of 25 an administrative 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, 26 and evidence can be gathered and preserved.”). The Court notes that Defendant(s) only need to produce documents such as a Confidential 27 Appeal Inquiry or a Use of Force Critique to the extent those documents contain witness statements related to the incident(s) alleged in the complaint and/or evidence related to the incident(s) alleged in the 28 complaint that will not be provided to Plaintiff separately. 2 1 with this requirement may result, among other things, in the party not being able 2 to rely on the pertinent information later in the case. 3 3. Parties do not need to produce documents or evidence that they have already 4 produced. 5 4. Parties do not need to produce documents or evidence that were provided to 6 them by the opposing party. 7 5. Parties may object to producing any of the above-listed documents and/or 8 evidence. Objections shall be filed with the Court and served on all other parties 9 within sixty days from the date of service of this order (or within thirty days of 10 receiving additional documents and/or evidence). The objection should include 11 the basis for not providing the documents and/or evidence. If Defendant(s) 12 object based on the official information privilege, Defendant(s) shall follow the 13 procedures described in the Court’s scheduling order. 14 6. Ifa party files an objection, all other parties have fourteen days from the date the 15 objection is filed to file a response. If any party files a response to an objection, 16 the Court will issue a ruling on the objection. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: _ October 24, 2025 [sf ey — 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28