Riley v. Vizcarra

District Court, S.D. California·Decided October 26, 2020·No. 3:18-cv-02911·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHANNON RILEY, Case No.: 3:18-cv-2911-JAH-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER:

13 v. (1) GRANTING IN PART AND 14 VIZCARRA, DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC 15 Defendant. CONFERENCE, and 16 (2) SETTING TELEPHONIC 17 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 18 [ECF No. 53] 19

20 21 Before the Court is Plaintiff Shannon Riley’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Telephonic 22 Conference. ECF No. 53. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil 23 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 relating to incidents that occurred while 24 incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, California. 25 ECF No. 24. In the instant motion, Plaintiff requests (1) a telephonic status conference 26 regarding discovery and (2) the opportunity for settlement negotiations. ECF No. 53 27 at 1–2. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN 28 PART Plaintiff’s motion. 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint, the operative pleading in this action, 3 on January 13, 2020. ECF No. 24. Defendants moved to dismiss certain claims from the 4 Second Amended Complaint, which Plaintiff opposed. ECF Nos. 28, 32. The Court 5 dismissed all claims in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, except the First and Eighth 6 Amendment claims against Defendant Vizcarra arising from a March 18, 2018 incident. 7 ECF No. 37. On July 2, 2020, Defendant filed an Answer to the surviving claims in 8 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 38. Accordingly, on July 7, 2020, the 9 Court issued its Scheduling Order regulating discovery and other pre-trial proceedings. 10 ECF No. 39. In its Scheduling Order, the Court explained that: 11 All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by January 11, 2021. “Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules 12 of Civil Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated 13 a sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the times for service, notice 14 and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel 15 shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer with regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). A failure to comply in this 16 regard will result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an order of 17 the court, no stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be recognized by the court. The Court expects counsel to make every effort to 18 resolve all disputes without court intervention through the meet and confer 19 process. If the parties reach an impasse on any discovery issue, Defendant must e-mail chambers at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov no later than 45 20 days after the date of service of the written discovery response that is in 21 dispute, seeking a telephonic conference with the Court to discuss the discovery dispute. The email must include: (1) at least three proposed times 22 mutually agreed upon by the parties for the telephonic conference; (2) a 23 neutral statement of the dispute; and (3) one sentence describing (not arguing) each parties’ position. The movant must copy opposing counsel on the email. 24 No discovery motion may be filed until the Court has conducted its pre-motion 25 telephonic conference, unless the movant has obtained leave of Court. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply with the Chambers Rules of 26 Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard[.] 27 ECF No. 39 at 2 (emphasis modified). This Order follows. 28 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 In Plaintiff’s instant motion, he requests a telephonic conference regarding 3 discovery, and the opportunity to “reach a speedier resolution.” ECF No. 53 at 1–2. The 4 Court will address these in turn. 5 A. Discovery Teleconference 6 Plaintiff correctly notes that the Court issued its Scheduling Order in July, which 7 stated that fact discovery must be completed by January 11, 2021. ECF 53 at 1; see ECF 8 No. 39 at 2. However, Plaintiff’s contention that “almost three months have since passed 9 and this court has yet to hold said telephonic conference[,]” which indicates a belief that 10 discovery is predicated on a telephonic conference, is misinformed. Compare ECF 53 at 1 11 with ECF No. 39 at 2. The pre-motion teleconference is required before filing a discovery 12 dispute motion, not before propounding discovery requests—i.e., the Court does require 13 that the parties alert the Court to any discovery disputes via teleconference before filing 14 any motion, but the Court does not require the parties alert the Court when conducting 15 routine discovery. ECF No. 39 at 2. Here, Plaintiff has not represented to the Court that 16 there are any discovery disputes at issue, and thus the Court DENIES his request for a 17 discovery dispute teleconference without prejudice to refiling should a dispute arise. The 18 Court reiterates that a telephonic conference is not needed before conducting 19 discovery; the parties are, and have been, free to propound discovery requests to each 20 other in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 21 B. Opportunity to Discuss Settlement 22 Plaintiff also requests an opportunity to discuss settlement, and notes that he “is 23 willing to forego discovery in an effort to possibly reach a speedier resolution.” ECF No. 24 53 at 2. Before issuing its Scheduling Order, the Court did not conduct an Early Neutral 25 Evaluation or Case Management Conference in this case, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 26 16.1(e). ECF No. 39 at 1. Given Plaintiff’s representations in his motion, upon a review of 27 the current status of the case, and good cause appearing, the Court, in its discretion, has 28 determined that a telephonic settlement conference is appropriate at this stage of the case. 1 Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for a telephonic settlement conference is GRANTED, and 2 the Court SETS a Settlement Conference for December 11, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. before the 3 Honorable Allison H. Goddard. To facilitate the conference, the Court ORDERS as 4 follows: 5 1. For Settlement Conferences, the Court customarily requires personal 6 attendance of all parties, party representatives, including claims adjusters for insured 7 defendants, and the primary attorney(s) responsible for the litigation. However, since 8 Plaintiff is incarcerated in a penal institution, and due to the current COVID-19 public 9 emergency,1 both sides may appear for the Settlement Conference telephonically rather 10 than in person. Therefore, all named parties, party representatives, including claims 11 adjusters for insured defendants, as well as principal attorney(s) responsible for the 12 litigation must attend via teleconference. All who attend the conference must be legally 13 and factually prepared to discuss and resolve the case. Counsel appearing without their 14 clients (whether or not counsel has been given settlement authority) will be subject to 15 immediate imposition of sanctions. 16 17

18 19 1 On March 23, 2020, Chief Judge Larry A. Burns amended his original Order in response to the COVID-19 public emergency, which, among other things, excuses personal 20 appearance of counsel and parties at civil court proceedings and notes that judges retain 21 discretion to hold civil proceedings telephonically. See CJO #18-A at ¶ 4B. His original order, CJO #18, is available on the Court website at 22 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/_assets/pdf/rules/Order%20of%20the%20Chief%20Judge 23 %2018.pdf.

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

Riley v. Vizcarra, (S.D. Cal. 2020).

Riley v. Vizcarra (Riley v. Vizcarra) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related