Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01710/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01710-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ANTHONY HOWARD, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SGT. ENCINAS, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01710-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER FOLLOWING INITIAL 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

Michael Howard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which includes state law 

claims. On February 24, 2020, the Court held an Initial Scheduling Conference 

(“Conference”). Plaintiff telephonically appeared on his own behalf. Counsel Byron Miller

telephonically appeared on behalf of Defendants. 

During the Conference, and with the benefit of the scheduling conference statement 

provided by Defendants, the Court and the parties discussed relevant documents in this case 

and their possible locations. In addition to opening discovery generally, the Court ordered that 

certain documents that are central to the dispute be promptly produced.

Therefore, in an effort to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of this 

///

///

Case 1:18-cv-01710-DAD-EPG Document 41 Filed 02/26/20 Page 1 of 3
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

action,1and after consideration of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1),2IT IS ORDERED3

that:

1. Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of service of this order to serve 

Defendants’ counsel with his initial disclosures. As discussed in the Court’s 

prior order (ECF No. 30), Plaintiff shall provide Defendants with “[t]he name 

and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to 

have discoverable information−along with the subjects of that information−that 

[Plaintiff] may use to support [his] claims or defenses, unless the use would be 

solely for impeachment.” (Id. at 3). Plaintiff shall also provide Defendants with 

a “copy−or a description by category and location−of all documents, 

electronically stored information, and tangible things that [Plaintiff] has in [his]

possession, custody, or control and may use to support [his] claims or defenses, 

unless the use would be solely for impeachment.” (Id.)

2. Defendants have thirty days from the date of service of this order to produce 

 

1 See, e.g., United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 508–09 (9th Cir. 2008) (“We begin with the 

principle that the district court is charged with effectuating the speedy and orderly administration of justice. There 

is universal acceptance in the federal courts that, in carrying out this mandate, a district court has the authority to 

enter pretrial case management and discovery orders designed to ensure that the relevant issues to be tried are 

identified, that the parties have an opportunity to engage in appropriate discovery and that the parties are 

adequately and timely prepared so that the trial can proceed efficiently and intelligibly.”).

2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any 

nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, 

considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative 

access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and 

whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

“Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Ibid.

3 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, “[a]t any pretrial conference, the court may consider 

and take appropriate action on the following matters: . . . controlling and scheduling discovery, including orders 

affecting disclosures and discovery under Rule 26 and Rules 29 through 37” and “facilitating in other ways the 

just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(F). See also Little v. City of 

Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery.”). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 vests the district court with early control over cases “toward a process of 

judicial management that embraces the entire pretrial phase, especially motions and discovery.” In re Arizona, 

528 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming district court’s requiring that prison officials prepare a Martinez

report to give detailed factual information involving a prisoner’s suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and stating “district 

courts have wide latitude in controlling discovery.”). See also Advisory Committee Notes to 1993 Amendment to 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding Rule 26(a) (“The enumeration in Rule 26(a) of items to be disclosed 

does not prevent a court from requiring by order or local rule that the parties disclosed additional information 

without a discovery request.”). 

Case 1:18-cv-01710-DAD-EPG Document 41 Filed 02/26/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

witness statements and evidence gathered from investigation(s) into the 

incident(s) at issue in the complaint. Defendants do not need to produce

evaluation(s) of evidence (such as conclusions from a non-witness supervisor

regarding Defendants’ use of force) or documents they have already provided. 

If any witness statements or evidence is withheld pursuant to the official 

information privilege, Defendants have thirty days from the date of service of 

this order to submit the withheld statements and evidence to the Court for in 

camera review pursuant to the procedures laid out in the Court’s scheduling 

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01710-DAD-EPG Document 41 Filed 02/26/20 Page 3 of 3