Gonzales v. Garcia

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 ANTHONY C. GONZALES, CDCR Case No.: 3:19-cv-00660-GPC-RBM #AH-5287, 3 Plaintiff,, ORDER:

4 (1) DENYING DEFENDANT?’S EX 15 NCHOLE GARCIA, CONTINUE TELEPHONIC 16 Defendant.) DISCOVERY CONFERENCE; 17 . (2) VACATING APRIL 22, 2020 18 TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE; AND (3) SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFF’S 21 MOTION TO COMPEL 22 [Docs. 36, 37, 38] 23 24 : 26 Anthony C. Gonzales (“Plaintiff”), a California prisoner proceeding in pro per and 27 forma pauperis, filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See generally Docs. 28 /1, 3.) Plaintiff claims Defendant Nichole Garcia (“Defendant”), a Calipatria State Prison ]

1 staff member, violated Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care. (Doc. 2 } 1 at 2-6.) Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery (“Motion to Compel”), which was 3 accepted nunc pro tunc to March 25, 2020. (Doc. 36.)! In lieu of setting a briefing schedule 4 }on the Motion to Compel, the undersigned issued a Minute Order setting a telephonic 5 discovery conference for April 22, 2020 at 9:00AM. (Doc. 37.) On April 14, 2020, 6 Defendant filed an Ex Parte Application (“EPA”) to continue the April 22, 2020 telephonic 7 discovery conference. (Doc. 38.) 9 Defendant requests a sixty-day continuance of the telephonic discovery conference 10 due to the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) COVID-19 11 guidelines which minimizes inmate movement. (Doc. 38 at 1-2.) As to the underlying 12 Motion to Compel, Defendant alleges Plaintiff served the Motion prior to the expiration of 13 Defendant’s deadline to provide the subject discovery responses. (/d. at 2.) Defendant 14 /alleges she timely served discovery responses and documents to Plaintiff on March 19, 15 2020. 16 Given Plaintiff's incarceration and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, it appears the 17 parties’ discovery dispute, if any, may be more efficiently resolved on the papers. FED. R. 18 Civ. P. 26(d) (court orders set the timing and sequence of discovery); see Crawford-El v. 19 Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 599 (1998) (trial court manages the discovery process to facilitate 20 prompt and efficient resolution of the lawsuit). Thus, a sixty-day continuance of the April 21 22, 2020 telephonic discovery conference is not warranted. 22 23 24 ' Although the November 20, 2019 Scheduling Order set a fact discovery completion date of March 20, 2020, Plaintiff is incarcerated and proceeding pro se. (Doc. 31 at 1 (stating, “‘[c]ompleted’ means all 95 discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . . . must be initiated a sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date... .”); 26 Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987) (stating “strict time limits . . . ought not to be insisted upon where restraints resulting from a pro se prisoner plaintiff's incarceration prevent timely 27 compliance with court deadlines.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Thus, the Court is 28 inclined to consider Plaintiff's Motion to Compel on the merits despite any timeliness issues. Eldridge, 832 F.2d at 1136.

1 Tit. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, the Court: 3 (1) DENIES Defendant’s Ex Parte Application to Continue Meet and Confer 4 Teleconference re: Discovery (Doc. 38); 5 (2) VACATES the April 22, 2020 telephonic discovery conference (Doc. 37); 6 and 7 (3) SETS the following briefing schedule: Defendant’s response to □□□□□□□□□□ □ 8 Motion to Compel will be due by April 30, 2020. Plaintiff is not required to file a Reply. 9 The Court will take the matter under submission on the papers. 11 DATE: April 16, 2020

13 ON. RUTH B EZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28