Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00830/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00830-11/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD M. GILMAN, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0830 LKK GGH P

vs.

S. FISHER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. By Order filed on January 30, 2007, the court, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for a

continuance, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), of defendants’ motion for summary judgment and

directed defendants Fisher and Welch to produce to plaintiff, within 30 days, “only the specific

pages of the decision portion of parole consideration hearing transcripts solely from subsequent

parole consideration hearings for convicted male first degree murderers serving sentences of 25

years to life, for the entire year of 2006, but only that year.” See Order, filed on 1/30/07, pp. 6-7.

Defendants subsequently sought reconsideration of the order and a stay of discovery before the

district judge. The order of the undersigned was affirmed and the motion to stay discovery was

denied on March 7, 2007. See Order, filed on 3/07/07. 

Case 2:05-cv-00830-MCE-CKD Document 74 Filed 03/28/07 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

2

Defendants have now filed a motion, couched as a motion for a protective order,

and a motion for extension of time to produce the documents without which any such production

would by now be untimely. In the putative motion for a protective order, defendants state some

1,613 subsequent parole consideration hearings for first degree murderers serving 25-year to life

sentences were conducted in 2006. Defendants seek to limit the number of transcripts to a

representative sample from two or three months in 2006, randomly selected, or to otherwise

reduce the “number of transcripts to a less burdensome number.” Motion, p. 2. Defendants

have also filed an ex parte motion for an order shortening time, filed March 28, 2007, seeking to

have the court address the motion for a protective order on an expedited basis, which ex parte

motion is disregarded as moot. 

The court grants defendants a 45-day extension of time from the date of this order

for production; however, plaintiff must be afforded an opportunity to respond to the motion

which seeks to reduce the production previously ordered before considering limitations proposed

by defendants. Plaintiff must file a response to the motion within fifteen (15) days. In the

alternative, within the same fifteen-day period, defendants may make arrangements with the

prison for plaintiff to take part in a telephone conference call with the court which includes

plaintiff pro se and defense counsel. Defendants’ counsel must also coordinate the scheduling of

any such conference call with the appropriate court staff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 3/28/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

gilm0830.ord

Case 2:05-cv-00830-MCE-CKD Document 74 Filed 03/28/07 Page 2 of 2