Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01876/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01876-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RAYMELL EASON 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WAL-MART CORPORATION, 

Defendant. 

No. 2: 16-cv-1876 KJM GGH 

ORDER 

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 The Complaint in this matter was initially filed in this court on February 16, 2016 by 

plaintiff, who is an inmate in the U.S. Penitentiary located in Lompoc, Ca. ECF No. 1. On 

February 26, 2016, the matter was transferred to the Western District of Arkansas by Magistrate 

Judge Carolyn K. Delaney. ECF Nos. 4, 5. The District of Arkansas granted IFP status to 

plaintiff on March 29, 2016. ECF No. 7. A summons was returned executed by defendant on 

April 28, 2016, ECF No. 9, and an Answer to the Complaint was filed on May 10, 2016. ECF 

No. 11. Bruce Crawford from the law firm of Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, 

P.L.L.C. appeared as attorney for defendant. ECF No. 13. On August 8, 2016, the Western 

District of Arkansas transferred the case back to this District, ECF No. 17, and the matter was 

Case 2:16-cv-01876-KJM-GGH Document 22 Filed 10/31/16 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

docketed here on August 9, 2016, ECF No. 18, at which time New Case Documents were issued 

outlining the procedures to be followed to pursue the litigation in this court. ECF No. 19. 

 The new Case Documents required the parties to meet and confer regarding the automatic 

discovery disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, and within 30 days after 

the Complaint was Answered, and to file a Joint Status Report 14 days thereafter. In light of the 

fact that the Answer had been filed months before, the logical interpretation of the direction found 

in the Order was that the actions required would be addressed within 30 days of the service of the 

Order. However, on August 16, 2016 – within the 30 day response required by the Order, a 

Substitution of Attorney Request was filed by defendant’s counsel. ECF No. 20. That Request 

was granted by an Order signed on August 19, 2016, identify Colleen R. Howard of the law firm 

of Porter Scott as the new attorney. ECF No. 21. No action has been taken by the parties to 

address the issues required by the August 9, 2016 Order served on all counsel. ECF No. 19. 

 To assist the parties in meeting their obligations, the court is providing a copy of the 

foregoing order and accompanying documents with this Order. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

1. The parties shall meet and confer about the Rule 26 automatic disclosures they will 

each make within 30 days of the date of this Order, or by November 25, 2016; 

2. The parties shall submit a Joint Status Report addressing the subjects listed in 3(a)-

(m) of that Order within 14 days of completing their meet and confer efforts and file it with court 

on or before December 9, 2016. 

3. The parties shall also complete the consent form provided to them. 

4. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of ECF No. 19, and the court’s consent 

form together with this Oder. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 31, 2016 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-01876-KJM-GGH Document 22 Filed 10/31/16 Page 2 of 2