The opinion of the court was delivered by: Arthur L. Alarcón United States Circuit Judge Sitting by Designation
Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson, a state prisoner in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, was recently appointed counsel by the Court. (Doc. 112). There are several matters pending before the Court.
On August 22, 2008, the Court granted Defendants' motion for an extension of time to respond (Doc. 109) to the Court's order of August 13, 2008 (Doc. 105). Defendants requested, and were granted, until August 25, 2008 to respond to the Court's order of August 13, 2008. Defendants have failed to respond or otherwise comply with the Court's order. Therefore, Defendants are hereby ORDERED to show cause why Defendants should not be sanctioned for failure to comply with the Court's order of August 22, 2008.
On August 26, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order compelling discovery. (Doc. 113). Specifically, Plaintiff moves the Court to order Defendants to produce, for in camera review, any documents Plaintiff is requesting, the production of which Defendants contend will create safety and security concerns for the prison.
In the motion, Plaintiff states that attached to the motion are: 1) a copy of Plaintiff's request for production of documents to Defendants, SET ONE; and, 2) Plaintiff's letter of July 20, 2008 to Defendants' counsel attempting to resolve the issue of production of documents without court action. However, neither of these documents were attached to the motion received by the Court. The Court is inclined to GRANT Plaintiff's motion, however, the Court cannot rule on this motion until it has reviewed Plaintiff's requests for production of documents, and Defendants' responses thereto. To date, neither party has responded to this Court's order of August 13, 2008, requesting that the parties file these documents with the Court. (Doc. 105). Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file with the Court the attachments referenced in Plaintiff's motion to compel filed August 26, 2008. (Doc. 113).
On August 21, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of his motion for appointment of an expert witness, and declaration in support thereof. (Doc. 110). Subsequent to the filing of Plaintiff's motion, counsel was appointed to represent Plaintiff in this matter. Accordingly, counsel for Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to inform the Court, no later than October 1, 2008, whether counsel intends to supplement the motion for reconsideration with any additional briefing or other supplemental authorities, or whether the Court should consider Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration as it is currently filed. (Doc. 110).
On August 27, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the revised scheduling order (Doc. 97) and to set a status conference no sooner than October 1, 2008. (Doc. 115). Plaintiff's motion states that Defendants do not object to vacating the revised scheduling order and have agreed to setting a status conference. Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED in part. The revised scheduling order is hereby VACATED. Plaintiff is directed to file a proposed revised scheduling order, on or before October 1, 2008, suggesting alternative dates for the close of discovery, dispositive motions and trial. Plaintiff's counsel should renew the request for a status conference after she has had an opportunity to consult with her client and review the documents and orders filed thus far in the case.
Accordingly, good cause showing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Defendants shall show cause why Defendants should not be sanctioned for failure to comply with the Court's order of August 22, 2008.
2. Plaintiff shall file with the Court the attachments referred to in Plaintiff's motion to compel filed ...