United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL, AND
DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO MEET AND CONFER (ECF NO.
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Collin Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This action proceeds on Plaintiff's complaint against
Defendants Santiesteban and Cortez for excessive force; (2)
Defendants Navarro and Sanchez for failure to intervene; (3)
Defendants Navarro, Andrzejewski,  and Brown for deliberate
indifference; (4) Defendants Santiesteban and Cortez for
assault and battery; and (5) Defendants Andrzejewski and
Brown for medical negligence.
motion for summary judgment, filed July 31, 2019, is fully
briefed and currently pending before the Court. (ECF Nos. 29,
January 10, 2020, Defendants filed the instant motion to
compel responses to request for production of documents and
special interrogatories and request to deem requests for
admissions admitted. (ECF No. 34.) In the motion, Defendants
also request an extension of the discovery cut off, currently
set for January 14, 2020, solely for the ability to move to
further compel responses, once they are received, if
necessary. Defendants request an extension of fifteen days
after receipt of Plaintiff's responses on the motion to
compel within which to bring a subsequent motion, if
necessary. (Id. at 3.)
this Court's discovery and scheduling order, the parties
are relieved of the requirement in Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 26 and 37, and Local Rule 251, to attempt to confer
in good faith to resolve a discovery dispute prior to filing
any motion to compel. Voluntary compliance is encouraged, but
not required. The Court's order further provides that the
meet and confer requirement may be reimposed in any case that
the Court deems it appropriate. (ECF No. 24.)
review of the motion to compel referenced above, the Court
finds it appropriate to require the parties to engage in a
meet and confer conference regarding their discovery dispute.
Defense counsel is directed to contact Plaintiff by
telephone, or to set-up an in-person meeting, regarding the
parties' discovery dispute within twenty-one (21)
days of the date of this order. Briefing on the
motion to compel is stayed during the meet and confer
process, and the opposing party is relieved of their
obligation to respond to the motion until further order of
conducting the meet and confer conference, the parties are
reminded that they are required to act in good faith during
the course of discovery. Complete, accurate, and truthful
discovery responses are required. False or incomplete
responses violate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
subject an offending party and/or counsel to sanctions.
Boilerplate objections will not be tolerated and will be
summarily overruled. Privileges are narrowly construed and
are generally disfavored. Information not properly disclosed
may be excluded from use at a hearing, motion, or trial.
seven (7) days of the parties'
conference, defense counsel shall file a Joint Statement
regarding the meet and confer conference. All parties shall
participate in the preparation of the Joint Statement, and
must sign the Joint Statement. Electronic signatures are
acceptable; a wet signature is not required.
Joint Statement shall set forth the following:
(a) a statement that the parties met and conferred in good
faith regarding the dispute, by phone or in-person, including
the date(s) of the conference(s);
(b) a statement explaining whether the motion to compel was
resolved in full or in part through the meet and confer
(c) if any issues from the motion remain unresolved, a
statement referring the court to each specific discovery
request that is still at issue.
review of the Joint Statement, the Court shall issue a
further order regarding the motion to compel. No. additional
filings may be made regarding the motion ...