Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00539/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00539-9/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

THOMAS LEE GLEASON, JR., 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

G. PLACENCIA,

 Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00539-NONE-EPG (PC)

ORDER FOLLOWING INITIAL 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

Thomas Gleason, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 23, 2020, the Court 

held an Initial Scheduling Conference (“Conference”). Plaintiff telephonically appeared on his 

own behalf. Counsel Jeremy Duggan telephonically appeared on behalf of Defendant. 

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

provided by Defendant and the initial disclosures provided by Plaintiff, 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 1:19-cv-00539-JLT-EPG Document 49 Filed 03/23/20 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. Defendants have sixty days from the date of service of this order to produce to 

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

incident(s) at issue in the complaint. At this time Defendants do not have to 

produce internal reviews or internal critiques. If any witness statements or 

evidence is withheld pursuant to the official information privilege, the withheld 

statements and evidence shall be submitted to the Court for in camera review 

pursuant to the procedures laid out in the Court’s scheduling order.

///

///

///

///

///

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 1:19-cv-00539-JLT-EPG Document 49 Filed 03/23/20 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

2. Within sixty days from the date of service of this order, Defendants shall

produce to Plaintiff all relevant medical and psychiatric records from 2017 that 

relate to the incident(s) at issue in the complaint or serve their objections to 

producing these documents. Plaintiff may challenge any objections by filing a 

motion to compel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00539-JLT-EPG Document 49 Filed 03/23/20 Page 3 of 3