(PC) L.C. Cunningham v. Martinez

Opinion

L.C. CUNNINGHAM, Case No. 1:19-cv-01508-AWI-EPG (PC)

Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO EXCHANGE DOCUMENTS v. ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO M. MARTINEZ, et al., PROVIDE INITIAL DISCLOSURES

Defendant(s). L.C. Cunningham (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 25, 2020, the Court issued an order requiring the parties to file scheduling conference statements. (ECF No. 43). The parties have now filed their statements. (ECF Nos. 59 & 61). The Court has reviewed this case and the parties’ statements. In an effort to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of this action,1 the Court will direct that certain documents that are central to the dispute be promptly produced.2 1 See, e.g., United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 508–09 (9th Cir. 2008) (“We begin with 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 court has the authority to enter pretrial case management and discovery orders designed to ensure that 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 and intelligibly.”). 2 Advisory Committee Notes to 1993 Amendment to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding 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 request.”). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Each party has sixty days from the date of service of this order to serve opposing parties, or their counsel, if represented, with copies of the following documents and/or evidence that they have in their possession, custody, or control, to the extent the parties have not already done so:3 a. Documents regarding exhaustion of Plaintiff’s claims, including 602s, Form 22s, and responses from the appeals office. b. Witness statements and evidence that were generated from investigation(s) related to the event(s) at issue in the complaint, such as an investigation stemming from the processing of Plaintiff’s grievance(s).4 2. Parties do not need to produce documents they have already produced or documents that were provided to them by the opposing party. 3. Parties may object to producing any of the above-listed documents and/or evidence. Objections shall be filed with the Court and served on all other parties within sixty days from the date of service of this order (or within thirty days of receiving additional documents and/or evidence). The objection should include the basis for not providing the documents and/or evidence. If Defendant(s) object based on the official information privilege, Defendant(s) shall follow the procedures described in the Court’s scheduling order. If a party files an objection, all other parties have fourteen days from the date the objection is filed to file a response. If any party files a response to an objection, the Court will issue a ruling on the objection. 3 Defense counsel is requested to obtain these documents from Plaintiff’s institution(s) of confinement. If defense counsel is unable to do so, defense counsel should inform Plaintiff that a third party subpoena is required. 4 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 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 preserved.”). eee EO IE I ISO EEO

Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of service of this order to serve Defendants’ counsel with his initial disclosures. As discussed in the Court’s prior order (ECF No. 43), Plaintiff shall provide Defendants with “[t]he name and, if known, address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable ) information—along with the subjects of that information—that [Plaintiff] may use to support [his] claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment.” (/d. at 3). Plaintiff shall also provide Defendants with a “copy—or a description by category and location—of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that [Plaintiff] has in [his] possession, custody, or control and may use to support [his] claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment.” (Id.).° IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘3 | Dated: _Marech 1, 2021 [sf ey — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE om. > Tf Plaintiff has already provided Defendants with his initial disclosures he does not need to re-serve