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.

Elias v. Navasartian

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 15, 2017

JEFF ELIAS, Plaintiff,
v.
VAZRICK NAVASARTIAN, et al., Defendants.

          DISCO VERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER APPLICABLE TO DEFENDANT DUBIEL ONLY

          GARY S. AUSTIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Jeff Elias (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff's original complaint filed on October 14, 2015, against defendants Vazrick Navasartian and J. Dubiel on Plaintiff's medical claims under the Eighth Amendment and related state law claims. (ECF No. 1.)

         On May 4, 2016, defendant Navasartian filed an Answer to the Complaint. (ECF No. 12.) On May 5, 2016, defendant Dubiel filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 13.)

         On May 6, 2016, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling order as to defendant Navasartian only.[1] (ECF No. 14.) The order set the following deadlines: (1) Initial Disclosures: June 20, 2016; (2) Motions based on Exhaustion: August 4, 2016; (3) Discovery Cut-Off: October 3, 2016; and (4) Dispositive Motion Deadline: December 2, 2016. (Id.) All of the deadlines in the May 6, 2016, Discovery and Scheduling order have now expired.[2]

         On March 13, 2017, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendant Dubiel's motion to dismiss, resolving the motion. (ECF No. 34.) Therefore, the court now issues this Discovery and Scheduling Order applicable to defendant Dubiel only.

         Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1, 16, and 26-36, discovery shall proceed as follows:

         I. WRITTEN DISCOVERY [3]

         Discovery requests shall be served by the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 and Rule 135 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California (Local Rules), and shall only be filed when required by Local Rules 250.2, 250.3, and 250.4.

         The parties are limited to 25 interrogatories as described by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, 25 requests for admission made according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, and 25 requests to produce made according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34.

         Responses to document requests shall include all documents within a party's possession, custody, or control. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a)(1). Documents are deemed within a party's possession, custody, or control if the party has actual possession, custody, or control thereof, or the legal right to obtain the property on demand. Allen v. Woodford, 2007 WL 309945, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2007.)[4]

         Responses to written discovery requests shall be due 30 calendar days after the request is served. All discovery requests must be served at least 60 calendar days before the discovery deadline. All motions to compel must be filed on or before the discovery deadline. The parties are required to act in good faith during the course of discovery and the failure to do so may result in the payment of expenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) or other appropriate sanctions authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or Local Rules.

         If any party withholds a document on the basis of privilege, he/she shall provide a privilege log to the requesting party identifying the date, author, recipients, general subject matter, and basis of the privilege within 15 calendar days after the date the response is due. Failure to provide a privilege log within this time shall result in a waiver of the privilege.

         If disputes arise about a party's obligation to respond to written requests for discovery, the parties shall comply with all pertinent rules including Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5, 7, 11, 26, and 37 and Local Rules 110, 130, 131, 133, 135, 142, 144, and 230(l). However, unless otherwise ordered, Local Rule 251 and the requirements set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37- that a party certify he/she has conferred in good faith or attempted to confer with the opponent in an effort to resolve the dispute prior to seeking court action - shall not apply. Nevertheless, voluntary compliance with this provision of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37 is encouraged. At a minimum, the parties shall exchange written correspondence in an attempt to resolve the issues. All such written exchanges shall be included as exhibits to motions to compel. Amendments to discovery responses served after the filing of and in response to a motion to compel are strongly disfavored, absent good faith.

         A discovery motion that does not comply with all applicable rules will be stricken and may result in the imposition of sanctions. Further, a motion is not appropriate to compel documents that are equally available to the moving party. For example, Plaintiff may not file a ...


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.