(PC) Kindred v. Allenby

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedApril 30, 2020
Docket1:18-cv-00554
StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Kindred v. Allenby ((PC) Kindred v. Allenby) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
(PC) Kindred v. Allenby, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 RICHARD SCOTT KINDRED, Case No. 1:18-cv-00554-DAD-EPG (PC) 4 Plaintiff, SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER 5 DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND PLAINTIFF A COPY OF LOCAL RULE 281(b) 6 v. Motion to Compel 7 Filing Deadline: September 11, 2020

8 Non-expert Discovery Cutoff: October 30, 2020 9 BRANDON PRICE, et al., Dispositive Motion 10 Defendants. Filing Deadline: December 4, 2020

11 Expert Disclosure Deadline: June 11, 2021 12 Rebuttal Expert 13 Disclosure Deadline: July 9, 2021

14 Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing: October 25, 2021 15 Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom 5 (DAD) 16 Jury Trial: Not set 17 18 This Court conducted a scheduling conference on April 29, 2020. Plaintiff Richard Scott 19 Kindred telephonically appeared on his own behalf. Counsel Matthew Robert Day telephonically 20 appeared on behalf of Defendants. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), this Court 21 now sets a schedule for this action. 22 I. DISCOVERY PROCEDURES 23 The parties are now granted leave to serve discovery in addition to that provided as part of 24 initial disclosures. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1, 16, and 26-36, discovery shall 25 proceed as follows: 26 1. Discovery requests shall be served by the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 27 Procedure 5 and Local Rule 135. Discovery requests and responses shall not be filed 28 1 with the Court unless required by Local Rules 250.2, 250.3, or 250.4 (providing that 2 discovery requests shall not be filed unless or until there is a proceeding in which the 3 document or proof of service is at issue). A party may serve on any other party no 4 more than 15 interrogatories, 15 requests for production of documents, and 10 requests 5 for admission. On motion, these limits may be increased for good cause. 6 2. Responses to written discovery requests shall be due forty-five (45) days after the 7 request is first served. Boilerplate objections are disfavored and may be summarily 8 overruled by the Court. Responses to document requests shall include all documents 9 within a party’s possession, custody or control. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Documents 10 are deemed within a party’s possession, custody, or control if the party has actual 11 possession, custody, or control thereof, or the legal right to obtain the property on 12 demand. 13 3. If any party or third party withholds a document on the basis of privilege, that party or 14 third party shall provide a privilege log to the requesting party identifying the date, 15 author, recipients, general subject matter, and basis of the privilege within thirty (30) 16 days after the date that responses are due. The privilege log shall simultaneously be 17 filed with the Court. Failure to provide and file a privilege log within this time 18 shall result in a waiver of the privilege. Additionally, if a party is claiming a right 19 to withhold witness statements and/or evidence gathered from investigation(s) 20 into the incident(s) at issue in the complaint based on the official information 21 privilege, the withholding party shall submit the withheld witness statements 22 and/or evidence to the Court for in camera review, along with an explanation of 23 why the witness statements and/or evidence is privileged.1 The witness statements

24 1 See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 94-95 (2006) (“[P]roper exhaustion improves the quality of those 25 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, witnesses can be identified and questioned while memories are still fresh, and evidence can be gathered and 26 preserved.”). The “common law governmental privilege (encompassing and referred to sometimes as the official or state 27 secret privilege) . . . is only a qualified privilege, contingent upon the competing interests of the requesting litigant and subject to disclosure . . . .” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975) (internal 28 citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has since followed Kerr in requiring in camera review and a balancing of 1 and/or evidence shall be Bates stamped, and mailed to Judge Grosjean at 2500 Tulare 2 Street, Sixth Floor, Fresno, CA 93721. The withholding party shall also file and serve 3 a notice that they have complied with this order. All other claims of privilege, 4 including claims of the official information privilege over information other than 5 witness statements and/or evidence gathered from investigation(s) into the incident(s) 6 at issue in the complaint, may be challenged via a motion to compel. 7 4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(B), Defendant(s) may depose 8 Plaintiff and any other witness confined in a prison on the condition that, at least 9 fourteen (14) days before such a deposition, Defendant(s) serve all parties with the 10 notice required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1). Plaintiff’s failure to 11 participate in a properly noticed deposition could result in sanctions against Plaintiff, 12 including monetary sanctions and/or dismissal of this case. Pursuant to Federal Rule 13 of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4), the parties may take any deposition under this section by 14 video conference without a further motion or order of the Court. Due to security 15 concerns and institutional considerations not applicable to Defendant(s), Plaintiff must 16 seek leave from the Court to depose confined witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of 17 Civil Procedure 30(a)(2). Nothing herein forecloses a party from bringing a motion 18 for protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) if necessary. 19 5. With the Court’s permission, Plaintiff may serve third party subpoenas if Plaintiff 20 seeks documents from entities that are not presently defendants in this case. To issue 21 a subpoena on these entities, or any other third parties, Plaintiff must file a request for 22 the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum with the Court. If the Court approves the 23 request, it may issue Plaintiff a subpoena duces tecum, commanding the production of 24

25 interests in ruling on the government’s claim of the official information privilege. See, e.g., Breed v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 542 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 1976) (“[A]s required by Kerr, we recognize ‘that in camera review is a highly appropriate and useful means of dealing with claims of governmental privilege.’”) (quoting Kerr v. 26 U. S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 406 (1976)); Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1990), as amended on denial of reh'g (Feb.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
(PC) Kindred v. Allenby, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-kindred-v-allenby-caed-2020.