Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01942/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01942-11/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD M. SANSONE,

Plaintiff

v.

J.C.THOMAS, ET AL.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01942-DAD-EPG (PC)

Discovery

Status Conference: January 25, 2017

Time: 2:00 p.m.

Courtroom 10 (EPG)

Albino Hearing: November 17, 2016

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Courtroom 10 (EPG)

Deadline to Amend 

Pleadings: December 14, 2016

Non-expert discovery

deadline: February 14, 2017

Expert Disclosures: August 23, 2017

Rebuttal Expert: September 20, 2017

Expert Cutoff: October 25, 2017

Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: April 24, 2017

Telephonic Trial

Confirmation Hearing: February 5, 2018

Time: 1:30 p.m.

Courtroom 5 (DAD)

Jury Trial: April 3, 2018

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Courtroom 5 (DAD)

This Court conducted a scheduling conference on October 12, 2016. Plaintiff Richard M. 

Sansone telephonically appeared on his own behalf. Counsel Monica N. Anderson telephonically

appeared on behalf of the Defendants. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), this Court now sets a 

schedule for this action.

Case 1:13-cv-01942-DAD-EPG Document 67 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 5
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

I. DISCOVERY PROCEDURES

The parties were previously instructed in the Court’s discovery procedures in the Court’s 

June 14, 2016 order. (ECF No. 42.) Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1, 16, and 26-

36, and as discussed on the record, the Court issues the following additional discovery orders:

1. Defendants have withheld documents on the basis of the official information privilege. 

Defendants shall submit any such documents to the Court for in camera review no 

later than November 11, 2016. If any additional documents are withheld on the basis 

of official information privilege, Defendants shall submit those documents for in 

camera review no more than 2 weeks after the privilege objection is served on 

Plaintiff. 

2. Pursuant to Defendants’ request, November 25, 2016 shall be the final date for either 

party to serve any discovery request. 

3. With the Court’s permission, Plaintiff may serve third party subpoenas, including on 

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation if Plaintiff seeks 

documents from them. To issue a subpoena on these entities, or any other third parties, 

Plaintiff must file a request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum with the Court. 

If the Court approves the request, it may issue Plaintiff a subpoena duces tecum, 

commanding the production of documents from a non-party, and may command

service of the subpoena by the United States Marshal Service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45; 28 

U.S.C. 1915(d). However, the Court will consider granting such a request only if the 

documents sought from the non-party are not equally available to Plaintiff and are not 

obtainable from Defendant(s) through a request for production of documents. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 34. In any request for a subpoena, Plaintiff must: (1) identify with specificity 

the documents sought and from whom, and (2) make a showing in the request that the 

records are only obtainable through that third party. The documents requested must 

also fall within the scope of discovery allowed in this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1).

4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, Defendant(s) shall disclose to the 

Plaintiff the identity of the John Doe defendants or, if the Defendant(s) are unable to 

Case 1:13-cv-01942-DAD-EPG Document 67 Filed 10/13/16 Page 2 of 5
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

make a specific identification, any document or information which would assist in the 

identification of the John Does. Defendant(s) are not required to produce photographs 

of CDCR employees or inmates. Plaintiff shall have until December 14, 2016 to: (a) 

move to amend the complaint to add or substitute specific defendants for the John 

Does; (b) identify additional steps that can be taken to identify the John Does who 

remain unidentified; or (c) move to amend the complaint to include any additional 

claims or parties. Failure to comply with this requirement will result in the dismissal 

of the John Does, and will bar further amendment of the complaint, unless good cause 

for the amendment can be shown.

5. A discovery conference has been set for January 25, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. Two weeks 

before the discovery conference, the parties may file a motion to compel further 

discovery responses. One week before the discovery conference, the responding party 

may file a response to the motion to compel. The motion should include a copy of the 

request(s) and any response to the request(s) at issue. Unless there is a need for 

discovery prior to the conference, no motions to compel shall be filed earlier than the 

dates set forth above. Motions to compel will not be permitted after the discovery 

conference absent good cause. The parties should be prepared to address all discovery 

disputes at the discovery conference. 

II. EXHAUSTION MOTIONS

Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 for failure 

to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 43.) Given the disputes of fact regarding the issue 

of exhaustion of administrative remedies, which were discussed on the record, the Court will 

conduct an Albino evidentiary hearing. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014), 

cert. denied sub nom. Scott v. Albino, 135 S.Ct. 403 (2014). Following the hearing, the Court 

will issue findings and recommendations on the issue of exhaustion. The Albino evidentiary 

hearing is set for November 17, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10.

III. DISCOVERY DEADLINE

The deadline for the completion of all discovery is February 14, 2017. All discovery 

must be provided by this date, including discovery compelled following the discovery conference.

Case 1:13-cv-01942-DAD-EPG Document 67 Filed 10/13/16 Page 3 of 5
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

IV. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINE

The deadline for filing all dispositive motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 is April 24, 

2017.

V. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

Based on the pending motion for summary judgment and the lack of a settlement demand 

from Plaintiff, the parties have not agreed that a settlement conference is appropriate at this time. 

Plaintiff is encouraged to submit a demand for settlement to Defendants and the parties are 

encouraged to contact the Court for any assistance in scheduling a settlement conference. Note 

that a settlement conference will be required before trial.

VI. MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION

The parties have declined the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c). (ECF No. 17.) 

VII. TELEPHONIC TRIAL CONFIRMATION HEARING

The Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing is set for February 5, 2018 at 1:30 p.m., in 

Courtroom 5, before District Judge Dale A. Drozd. 

VIII. COURT TRIAL DATE

A trial is set for April 3, 2018 at 8:30 a.m., in Courtroom 5, before District Judge Dale A. 

Drozd. 

IX. EFFECT OF THIS ORDER

This order represents the Court and the parties’ best estimated schedule to complete this 

case. Any party unable to comply with the dates outlined in this order shall immediately file an 

appropriate motion or stipulation identifying the requested modification(s).

The dates set in this Order are considered to be firm and will not be modified absent a 

showing of good cause, even if a stipulation to modify is filed. Due to the impacted nature of the 

civil case docket, this Court disfavors requests to modify established dates.

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 1:13-cv-01942-DAD-EPG Document 67 Filed 10/13/16 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Failure to comply with this order shall result in the imposition of sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01942-DAD-EPG Document 67 Filed 10/13/16 Page 5 of 5