Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02303/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02303-1/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

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

04cv2303

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEROY WILLIS, JR., 

CDC #H-36974,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVE RITTER, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 04-CV-2303-WQH (JMA)

ORDER FOLLOWING CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

The Court convened a telephonic Case Management Conference

on July 10, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. During the conference, the Court

discussed, inter alia, various issues raised by recent filings by

the parties, including Plaintiff’s May 30, 2007 filing entitled

“Motion to Extend Cutoff Date on Discovery Deadline” (Doc. No.

55), Plaintiff’s June 1, 2007 filing entitled “Motion to Address

the Court” (Doc. No. 57), Defendants’ Answer to Second Amended

Complaint filed on June 18, 2007 (Doc. No. 59), and Defendants’

Objection and Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Address the Court

on Latest Medical Findings filed on June 29, 2007 (Doc. No. 65). 

//

Case 3:04-cv-02303-WQH-JMA Document 71 Filed 07/16/07 Page 1 of 4
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 04cv2303

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. As previously set forth in the Court’s March 29, 2007

Order (see Doc. No. 48, page 7), the operative pleading in this

matter is the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed on February

8, 2005 nunc pro tunc February 3, 2005. Accordingly, Defendants’

Answer to Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 59) is procedurally

improper. Defendants’ counsel, Jason Tortorici, Esq., advised

the Court that he will file a notice of withdrawal as to this

document.

2. The operative schedule in this case is set forth in the

Court’s March 29, 2007 Order (see Doc. No. 48). Pursuant to that 

schedule, the cutoff for discovery was extended to September 14,

2007. No further extensions of the dates contained in the

amended schedule issued on March 29, 2007 shall be granted.

3. As set forth in the amended schedule, expert disclosures

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) are due from both parties on

August 10, 2007. 

4. If there is any insurance that provides coverage for the

claims asserted by Plaintiff, Defendants must comply with the

disclosure requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(D) within two

(2) weeks of the date of this Order. 

5. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to

Discovery (Doc. No. 51) has been taken under submission.

6. Although Defendants’ Objection and Response to

Plaintiff’s Motion to Address the Court on Latest Medical

Findings (Doc. No. 65) purports to respond to Plaintiff’s June 1,

2007 filing (Doc. No. 57), the Court does not see anything in the

filing at Doc. No. 57 that relates to Plaintiff’s “latest medical

Case 3:04-cv-02303-WQH-JMA Document 71 Filed 07/16/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3 04cv2303

findings.” 

7. The Court engaged in a lengthy discussion with the

parties regarding the medical records that Defendants have

subpoenaed from various institutions. As discussed, Plaintiff’s

medical history has clearly been put at issue by the allegations

in the FAC, and Defendants are accordingly entitled to seek

discovery pertaining to Plaintiff’s medical history. At a

minimum, Defendants are entitled to records dating back to 2002,

as the FAC contains allegations dating back to that year. 

Defendants are also entitled to documents predating 2002 in order

to explore the history and background of those aspects of

Plaintiff’s medical condition put at issue by the FAC. The

parties shall discuss an appropriate time scope for documents to

be obtained from Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, as

well as the signing of a medical authorization by Plaintiff. If

the parties are unable to resolve this issue and/or if Plaintiff

refuses to sign a medical authorization, Defendants may contact

the Court regarding filing a motion to compel.

8. Plaintiff is entitled to inspect any documents received

by Defendants from third parties and/or to obtain copies of such

documents upon payment of a reasonable copying charge. 

9. The Court also engaged in a discussion with the parties

regarding any deposition(s) Plaintiff may wish to take. During

the conference, Plaintiff advised that he intends to take a

deposition(s) by way of a sound recording device. Defendants’

counsel objected, and indicated that he would require a court

reporter to be present before producing any witnesses for

deposition.

Case 3:04-cv-02303-WQH-JMA Document 71 Filed 07/16/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4 04cv2303

Upon review of the applicable Federal Rules, the Court

observes that Plaintiff is permitted to record a deposition by

sound, sound-and-visual, or stenographic means. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 30(b)(2). Plaintiff should be aware that should he record a

deposition only by audiotape, and later offer a deposition as

evidence at trial or on a dispositive motion, a transcript of the

deposition will be required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(B) and

32(c). Plaintiff should also be aware that he will be

responsible for arranging the presence of an officer authorized

to administer oaths by the laws of the United States (including,

by way of example only, a notary), as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

28(a), and shall bear any costs related thereto, at any

deposition(s) he takes. Should Defendants wish to have any

depositions taken by Plaintiff recorded by stenographic means,

Defendants may do so at their own expense under Fed. R. Civ. P.

30(b)(3).

10. The Court will not tolerate any further taunts or

threats in any papers filed in this case. The Court expects the

parties to act toward each other with the highest degree of

respect and professionalism at all times.

11. The Court will convene a telephonic Case Management

Conference on September 12, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. Plaintiff and

counsel for Defendants shall participate in the conference. The

Court will coordinate the conference call.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 12, 2007

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02303-WQH-JMA Document 71 Filed 07/16/07 Page 4 of 4