Riley v. Vizcarra

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

Opinion

SHANNON RILEY, Case No.: 3:18-cv-2911-JAH-AHG Plaintiff, ORDER:

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

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

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