Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02980/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02980-25/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

ROBERT ELLIOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHANKARI REDDY, M.D., et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:10-cv-2980 MCE KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel. Defendants’ motions for 

summary judgment were resolved by order filed June 25, 2014, and this action now proceeds 

solely on plaintiff’s claims against Dr. Beck for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious 

medical needs, and medical negligence. (ECF No. 153.) 

On July 8, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation to reopen discovery regarding the elements 

of causation and damages. The parties contend that good cause exists to reopen discovery to 

determine the current medical status and treatment of plaintiff. Specifically, the parties need to 

obtain plaintiff’s medical records from January 1, 2013, to the present; defendants need to 

determine the type, extent, and location of plaintiff’s medical treatment since January 1, 2013; 

and some of plaintiff’s healthcare providers need to be deposed. (ECF No. 154 at 1.) 

The parties did not indicate how much time was needed to accomplish the additional 

discovery.

Case 2:10-cv-02980-MCE-KJN Document 155 Filed 07/18/14 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

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Additional discovery shall be completed on or before October 31, 2014. Any motion 

pertaining to discovery shall be noticed for hearing on or before the court’s October 16, 2014 law 

and motion calendar. 

2. On or before November 21, 2014, the parties shall file a joint statement informing the 

court of the following:

1. Whether a settlement conference should be scheduled in this action.

2. If the parties agree that a settlement conference should be scheduled, state:

a. Whether the parties agree that the undersigned magistrate judge may 

preside, OR whether another magistrate judge should be assigned; and 

b. Identify any dates through April 2015 when any party may not be 

available to attend the settlement conference.

3. If the parties do not agree that a settlement conference should be scheduled, 

identify:

a. The anticipated length of trial; and 

b. Any dates through 2015 when any party may not be available for 

pretrial or trial proceedings.

4. The parties shall inform the court of any other significant matters or requests in 

this action.

3. Upon review of the parties’ joint statement, the court will issue a further

scheduling order.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2014

/elli2980.disc.stat.

 

Case 2:10-cv-02980-MCE-KJN Document 155 Filed 07/18/14 Page 2 of 2