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.

Martin Louis Saiz v. Hanford Police Department

April 24, 2013

MARTIN LOUIS SAIZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
HANFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME AND SETTING TELEPHONIC SCHEDULING CONFERENCE DATE: June 11, 2013 TIME: 10:30 AM COURTROOM: 1 (8th Floor) (Doc. 23)

On March 18, 2013, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a ex parte motion to further expand the time in which he must respond to Defendants' requests for admissions, requests for production of documents, and special interrogatories. Seeking a sixty-day extension to May 17, 2013, Plaintiff reported that he was awaiting the receipt of his discovery requests to enable him to document his claims and identify the names of those persons with knowledge of the arrest that gives rise to his claims. In objecting to Plaintiff's motion, Defendants declared that "[t]here has [sic] never been any Rule 26 Initial Disclosures required of the parties," and complained of the ensuing lack of information regarding the nature of Plaintiff's claims.

In investigating Defendants' objections, the Court discovered that no scheduling order had been entered in this case. As a result, Plaintiff's motions for enlargement of time are essentially meaningless. Accordingly, this Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for enlargement of time and ORDERS that the parties participate in a scheduling conference at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 11, 2013, in Courtroom 1 of the U.S. District Courthouse, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno California.

Provisions Applicable to Scheduling Conferences

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) requires that, no later than 21 days before the Scheduling Conference, the parties must "... confer to consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case, to make or arrange for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), and to develop a proposed discovery plan."

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) provides that, unless authorized by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or by order or agreement of the parties, no party may seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) requires that, without waiting for a discovery request, among other things, a party must provide to other parties:

(1) The name, address, and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses identifying the subjects of the information;

(2) A copy of, or a description by category and location of, all documents, data compilations, and tangible things that are in the possession, custody, or control or the party and that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses; and

(3) A computation of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing party, making available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary material on which such computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered.

Telephonic attendance at the Scheduling Conference is mandatory upon each party not represented by counsel or, alternatively, by retained counsel. Only counsel who are thoroughly familiar with the facts and law of the instant case and who have full authority to bind his or her client shall appear. Trial counsel should participate in this Scheduling Conference whenever possible. Participants should expect to spend as much as 45 minutes in this Conference.

One (1) full week prior to the Scheduling Conference, Defense counsel shall electronically file in CM/ECF a Joint Scheduling Report, carefully prepared and executed by Plaintiff and defense counsel in full compliance with the requirements set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Defense counsel shall also email the report, in Word or WordPerfect format, to smsorders@caed.uscourts.gov. For reference purposes, the Joint Scheduling Report must indicate the date, time, and courtroom of the Scheduling Conference opposite the caption on the first page of the Report and indicate on the face page that the conference is telephonic.

Defense counsel be responsible for making prior arrangements for a one-line conference call and shall initiate the call at the above-designated time. After all parties are on the line, the call should be placed to Judge Snyder's chambers at (559) 499-5690.

SHOULD PLAINTIFF OR DEFENSE COUNSEL FAIL TO APPEAR AT THE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE OR FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS AS SET FORTH ABOVE, AN EX PARTE HEARING MAY BE HELD AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL, DEFAULT, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED, OR ...


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.