UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 28, 2011
MALIK JONES, PLAINTIFF,
J.L. BISHOP, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justin L. Quackenbush Senior United States District Judge
SCHEDULING ORDER AND DISCOVERY ORDER
The claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint which remain at issue in this case include claims for excessive force against Defendants Mitchell, Ringney, Whitlow;for failure to protect against Defendants Felker and Cate; and for retaliation against Defendant McGuire. All of these Defendants, except Cate, have been served and filed their answer. ECF Nos. 27, 34, 69. So as not to further delay the case while service is effectuated upon Defendant Cate, discovery shall proceed as to all other Defendants as follows:
1. Discovery requests shall be served by the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 and Local Rule 5-135, and shall only be filed with the clerk of this court when required by Local Rules 33-250(c), 34-250(c), and 36-250(c)
2. Responses to written discovery requests shall be due forty-five (45) days after the request is first served;
3. To ensure that the responding party has forty-five (45) days after the request is first served to respond, discovery requests must be served at least forty-five (45) days before the discovery deadline;
4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a), defendants may depose plaintiff and any other witness confined in a prison upon condition that, at least fourteen (14) days before such a deposition, defendants serve all parties with the notice required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1); and
5. If disputes arise about the parties' obligations to respond to requests for discovery, the parties shall comply with all pertinent rules including Rules 5, 7, 11, 26, and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 11-110, 7-130, 7-131, 5-133, 5-135, 6-136, 43-142, and 78-230(m) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Unless otherwise ordered, Local Rule 37-251 shall not apply, and the requirement set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37 that a party seeking relief from the court certify that he or she has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the other party or person in an effort to resolve the dispute prior to seeking court action shall not apply. Voluntary compliance with this provision of Rules 26 and 37 is encouraged, however. A discovery motion that does not comply with all applicable rules will be stricken and may result in imposition of sanctions.
6. The parties are advised that the deadline for filing motions to dismiss for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies pursuant to the unenumerated portion of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) shall be June 1, 2011.
7. The deadline for amending the pleadings shall be June 25, 2011. 8. The parties are advised that the deadline for the completion of all discovery, including filing motions to compel, shall be October 1, 2011. The pre-trial dispositive motion deadline does not apply to the filing of unenumerated Ru12(b) motions to dismiss for failure to exhaust. Unenumerated Rule 12(b) motions for failure to exhaust must be filed on or before the deadline separately set forth in this order.;
9. The deadline for filing pre-trial dispositive motions shall be November 1, 2011;
10. A request for an extension of a deadline set in this order must be filed on or before the expiration of the deadline in question; and
11. Extensions of time will only be granted on a showing of good cause.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and provide a copy to Plaintiff and counsel for the Defendants.
Justin L. Quackenbush
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.