Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wilson v. Brizyela

June 10, 2008

TEDDY LEROY WILSON, JR., PLAINTIFF,
v.
ISMAEL BRIZYELA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara L. Major United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER (1) DENYING FOURTH REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, (2) GRANTING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, AND (3) AMENDING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER REGULATING DISCOVERY AND OTHER PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS [Doc. Nos. 57 & 59]

On June 4, 2008, Plaintiff filed a request for appointment of counsel [Doc. No. 57] and a request for extension of time [Doc. No. 59].

The instant request for appointment of counsel is Plaintiff's fourth. See Doc. Nos. 18, 31, 37. The request does not differ in any substantive way from the previous three requests, all of which have been denied. See Doc. Nos. 22, 33, 39. Because nothing presented in the instant request alters this Court's conclusion that Plaintiff has failed to allege the requisite "exceptional circumstances," Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004), Plaintiff's fourth request is DENIED. Plaintiff is hereby warned that the Court will not accept further requests for assistance of counsel unless Plaintiff makes the required showing of exceptional circumstances.

In Plaintiff's request for an extension of time, Plaintiff seeks additional time to comply with the Court's March 21, 2008 Case Management Conference Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pretrial Proceedings ("Scheduling Order"). Plaintiff explains that he presently is serving a sixty-day term for a parole violation and has limited access to the law library. He also claims that, prior to his incarceration, his wife threw him out of the house and refuses to relinquish his legal files.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for a continuance of the pending dates set forth in the Scheduling Order and, therefore, GRANTS Plaintiff's request for an extension of time. However, Plaintiff is cautioned that because this case has been pending for over a year and a half and because Plaintiff has been given numerous extensions of time, no further extensions of time will be granted absent a showing of good cause.

The Scheduling Order is amended as follows: 1. Each party shall serve on all opposing parties a list of experts whom that party expects to call at trial, on or before September 19, 2008. Each party may supplement its designation in response to the other party's designation no later than October 3, 2008. Expert designations shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony the expert is expected to provide. The list shall also include the normal rates the expert charges for deposition and trial testimony.

The parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to present evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This requirement is not limited to retained experts.

Please be advised that failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the Court may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, including a prohibition on the introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence.

2. All expert disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) shall be served on all parties on or before November 21, 2008. Any contradictory or rebuttal information shall be disclosed on or before December 5, 2008. In addition, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1) imposes a duty on the parties to supplement the expert disclosures made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) by the time that pretrial disclosures are due under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) (discussed below).

The parties are advised to consult with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) regarding expert disclosures. Such disclosures shall include an expert report, all supporting materials, a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefor, the data or other information considered by the expert in forming the opinions, any exhibits to be used as a summary of or as support for the opinions, the qualifications of the witness including a list of all publications authored by the witness within the preceding ten years, the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony, and a list of other cases in which the witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four years.

This disclosure requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve the giving of expert testimony.

Please be advised that failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the Court may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, including a prohibition on the introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence.

3. All discovery shall be completed by all parties on or before January 18, 2009. "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 Civil Local Rules 16.5(k) and 26.1(a). All discovery motions shall be filed within thirty (30) days after counsel have met and conferred and reached an impasse with regard to any particular discovery issue, but in no event shall discovery motions be filed more than sixty (60) days after the date upon which the event giving rise to the discovery dispute occurred. For oral discovery, the event giving rise to the discovery dispute is the completion of the transcript of the affected portion of the deposition. For written discovery, the event giving rise to the discovery dispute is either the service of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.