Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01176/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01176-11/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RICHARD LOPEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. KRIEG, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-1176 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 On November 12, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion setting forth the medical reasons for his 

late response to defendants’ production request, and requesting that this court consider the 

attendance of two prospective witnesses on plaintiff’s behalf at “any hearing (pre-trial) or trial.” 

See ECF No. 86 at 2. 

 Because defendants have not filed a discovery motion challenging the timing of plaintiff’s 

production response, this matter is not before the court. Plaintiff’s request concerning potential 

witnesses is premature. The identity of the two witnesses plaintiff references in his “Exhibit 5” 

remain unclear – the witnesses are not identified by name in plaintiff’s motion, see ECF No. 86 at 

2, and plaintiff’s exhibits do not include a clearly-indicated Exhibit 5. Moreover, as set forth in 

the Discovery and Scheduling Order issued in this case, any motion to obtain the attendance of 

witnesses must be made in tandem with a pretrial statement. See ECF No. 83 at 2-3. This case 

still remains in the discovery stage. 

Case 2:13-cv-01176-KJM-AC Document 87 Filed 12/15/15 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

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion filed November 12, 

2015, ECF No. 86, is denied without prejudice. 

DATED: December 15, 2015 

Case 2:13-cv-01176-KJM-AC Document 87 Filed 12/15/15 Page 2 of 2