Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00276/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00276-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELLY B. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. PHUI, ET. AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-276-HBK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO STRIKE DEPOSITION AND REQUEST 

FOR EARLY SETTLEMENT PROGRAM

(Doc. Nos. 28, 36)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike deposition, request for production 

of documents, and request for in person settlement conference, filed on November 15, 2021. 

(Doc. No. 28). Defendant filed a response in opposition on November 17, 2021. (Doc. No. 31).

In the instant motion Plaintiff seeks to strike the notice of deposition of Plaintiff and 

request for production of documents served by Defendants Phui and Ugwueze. (See generally

Doc. No. 28). Plaintiff references the scheduling order and states it requires the parties “first 

attempt to meet and confer” to resolve any discovery disputes before seeking relief from the 

Court. (Id. at 1). Plaintiff also requests a settlement conference and appears to challenge the 

phone call he had with counsel previously regarding settlement as insufficient and not in 

compliance with the Court’s order. (Id. at 2-3; see also Doc. No. 36).

In opposition, Defendants note that Plaintiff states no grounds to strike the properly served 

discovery and his request for joint discovery is moot based on the Court’s discovery and 

Case 1:20-cv-00276-KES-HBK Document 43 Filed 02/10/22 Page 1 of 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

scheduling order. (Doc. No. 31 at 1). Defendants further note that they provided Plaintiff with 

more than a month’s notice for the deposition. (Id. at 2). 

The October 20, 2021 discovery and scheduling order permits the parties to engage in 

discovery at this time until June 20, 2022. (Doc. No. 22). Further, the order permits Defendants 

to depose Plaintiff with fourteen-days’ notice. (Id. at 2). Here, Defendants provided thirty-days’ 

notice of Plaintiff’s deposition. Thus, there is no reason to stay Plaintiff’s properly noticed 

deposition.1 

Plaintiff also requests a settlement conference both in the instant motion and again by 

separate motion filed November 24, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 28, 36). Plaintiff states that he believes 

this case should be sent to the early settlement program. (Doc. No. 36 at 2). Defendants submit 

that the parties’ settlement positions are far apart, as previously indicated and do not find a 

settlement conference will be productive at this time. (Doc. No. 37).

On September 15, 2021, the Court temporarily stayed the case so the parties could discuss 

whether alternative dispute resolution would be beneficial in this case. (Doc. Nos. 18). The 

parties conferred and ultimately determined settlement was “not currently achievable.” (Doc. No. 

19). Defendants reiterate their opposition to a settlement conference in response to Plaintiff’s 

recent motion requesting a settlement conference. (See Doc. No. 37 at 1-2). Thereafter, the Court 

issued the scheduling order referenced above. As the case progresses and Plaintiff produces 

discovery in response to Defendants’ requests, the parties may wish to confer again to see if a 

settlement conference is a viable option.2

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to strike deposition (Doc. No. 28) is DENIED.

1 Plaintiff may be confusing the discovery and scheduling order that permits the parties to engage in 

discovery with the meet and confer requirement before filing a motion to compel. A motion to compel 

discovery is only necessary when a party is not cooperating with the spirt of the discovery rules by 

providing answers to the other party on relevant information that is proportional to the needs of the case. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. 

2 While the Court is sensitive to Plaintiff’s current incarcerated, pro se status Plaintiff must refrain from 

duplicative and repeated filings because such filings only serve to further delay resolution of this matter 

and congest the court’s already overburdened docket. 

Case 1:20-cv-00276-KES-HBK Document 43 Filed 02/10/22 Page 2 of 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

3

2. Plaintiff’s motion to request early settlement program (Doc. No. 36) is DENIED.

Dated: February 10, 2022 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00276-KES-HBK Document 43 Filed 02/10/22 Page 3 of 3