In the court's June 18, 2010 order filed following the June 4, 2010 status conference, the court inadvertently omitted plaintiff's fifteenth cause of action from the list of remaining claims upon which this action is proceeding to trial. This amended order merely corrects that omission with all other aspects of the June 18 order remaining unchanged.
This matter came before the court on June 4, 2010 for a status conference. William Daley Bishop, Jr. appeared on behalf of plaintiff Andrew Lopez, and Christopher James Becker appeared on behalf of defendants. The following matters were heard.
I. Remaining Claims and Defendants
It appears that this action is currently proceeding on plaintiff's first*fn1 , second, eighth, ninth, tenth, and fifteenth*fn2 causes of action. The parties are advised to consider whether this action should proceed on plaintiff's eighth and ninth causes of action. In this regard, the court has previously determined that plaintiff had failed to present any evidence of a retaliatory motive on the part of defendants McKean and Bartos when they issued rules violation reports based on plaintiff's violation of regulations. See Findings and Recommendations, filed Sept. 29, 2008 at 27-28. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted in favor of defendants with respect to those retaliation claims. See Order filed Jan. 16, 2009.
The parties agree that there are seventeen defendants remaining.*fn3
II. Counsel's Access to his Client
Due to plaintiff's custody status and housing, Mr. Bishop has had difficulties meeting with plaintiff since his appointment. The court requested that defendants' counsel make any inquiries that might be helpful in expediting Mr. Bishop's access to his client.
III. Request to Re-open Discovery
Plaintiff's counsel requested leave to file a motion to re-open discovery with respect to plaintiff's retaliation claims. The request was granted and the following dates were set: plaintiff's motion for a limited re-opening of discovery shall be filed and served on or before July 16, 2010; defendants' opposition to the motion shall be filed and served on or before July 30, 2010; plaintiff's reply, if any, shall be filed and served on or before August 6, 2010; and plaintiff's motion for a limited re-opening of discovery will be heard before the undersigned on August 13, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 27.
IV. Settlement Conference
Although defendants' counsel has indicated that a settlement conference would be potentially beneficial at this time, no settlement conference will be scheduled until plaintiff's counsel has had the opportunity to meet with the client to determine whether they agree that a settlement conference would be appropriate at this time. The court informed the parties that at the hearing on the motion for a limited re-opening of discovery, they should be prepared to discuss whether a settlement conference should be scheduled at that time, whether they would prefer to have the settlement conference before the undersigned and waive any disqualification stemming therefrom, or to have another magistrate judge assigned to conduct the settlement conference, as well as possible dates for that settlement conference.
On April 8, 2010, defendants filed a response to the court's March 31, 2010 order concerning the inclusion of defendants Hansen, Singletary and Farris on defendants' list of trial witnesses. The court is satisfied with defendants' response and no further order will issue in that regard.
On April 8, 2010, plaintiff filed a document styled, "Notice Of Obstructions To Ability To Prepare For Trial. Request For Extension To Submit Documents And Subpeona's [sic]. Second Request For An Order Requiring Clerk To Provide Mileage Determinations. And, Request For Subpoena's And For Counsel." On April 16, 2010, plaintiff filed a document styled, "Objections To Magistrate Judges [sic] Order At ...