Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00711/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00711-5/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

ADAM SHARPE.

Plaintiff,

v.

STU SHERMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:19-cv-00711-DAD-EPG (PC)

DISCOVERY ORDER CONCERNING 

THIRD-PARTY MEDICAL RECORDS

FOLLOWING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

ORDER FOR CLERK TO PROVIDE 

ADDITIONAL COPY OF FIRST 

INFORMATIONAL ORDER TO PLAINTIFF

(ECF NO. 3)

On June 8, 2020, the Court held a Rule 16 telephonic scheduling conference. During the 

conference, and based on discussion with the parties and review of the scheduling conference 

statements, the Court determined that any third-party medical records obtained by any party

should be shared with all parties. Neither party had an objection to such an order.

In addition, Plaintiff Adam Sharpe asked about case resources. The Court notes that the 

First Informational Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights Case (ECF No. 3) contains 

some additional information. The Court will direct the Clerk of Court to provide an additional 

copy of that order to Plaintiff.

Case 1:19-cv-00711-KES-EPG Document 31 Filed 06/09/20 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, to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of this action,

1

and 

after consideration of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1),2IT IS ORDERED3that:

1. In the event any party receives third-party discovery concerning medical records in this 

litigation, such party will provide copies of the discovery to all other parties. The parties 

do not have to re-produce documents they have already produced.

2. The Clerk of Court is hereby respectfully ORDERED to send an additional copy of the 

First Informational Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights Case (ECF No. 3) to 

Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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.” Id.

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-00711-KES-EPG Document 31 Filed 06/09/20 Page 2 of 2