Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01899/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01899-16/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OBIE LEE CRISP, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01899-AWI-SKO (PC)

AMENDED DISCOVERY AND 

SCHEDULING ORDER

(Docs. 30, 42, 47, 50, 55)

Deadline to Amend Pleadings: November 28, 2016

Discovery Deadline: January 30, 2017

Dispositive Motion Deadline: March 17, 2017

Plaintiff, Obie Lee Crisp, III, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies in 

compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) was recently denied. (Docs. 56, 59.) It is, therefore,

appropriate to re-open discovery and to set the following schedule for this action. 

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1, 16, and 26-36, discovery shall proceed as 

follows:

Discovery Procedures

1. Discovery requests shall be served by the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 5 and Local Rule 135. Discovery requests and responses shall not be filed with the 

Court unless required by Local Rules 250.2, 250.3 and 250.4.

2. Responses to written discovery requests shall be due forty-five (45) days after the 

request is first served. Responses to any discovery that had been served prior to the issuance of 

Case 1:13-cv-01899-AWI-SKO Document 63 Filed 10/03/16 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

the order that stayed discovery are due forty-five (45) days from the date of service of this order.1 

Boilerplate objections are disfavored and may be summarily overruled by the Court. Responses

to document requests shall include all documents within a party's possession, custody or control. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Documents are deemed within a party's possession, custody or 

control if the party has actual possession, custody or control thereof, or the legal right to obtain 

the property on demand. Amendments to discovery responses served after the filing of and in 

response to a motion to compel are strongly disfavored, absent good faith. The parties are 

required to act in good faith during the course of discovery and the failure to do so may result in 

the payment of expenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) or other 

appropriate sanctions authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules.

3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(B), Defendant may depose 

Plaintiff and any other witness confined in a prison upon condition that, at least fourteen (14) 

days before such a deposition, Defendant serves all parties with the notice required by Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4), the 

parties may take any deposition under this section by video conference without a further motion 

or order of the Court. Nothing herein forecloses a party from bringing a motion for protective 

order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) if necessary. 

4. If discovery disputes arise, the parties shall comply with all pertinent rules including 

Rules 5, 7, 11, 26, and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 110, 130, 131, 133, 

135, 142, 144, and 230(l) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 

Eastern District of California. A discovery motion that does not comply with applicable rules 

will be stricken and may result in imposition of sanctions. However, unless otherwise ordered, 

Local Rule 251 shall not apply, and the requirement set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

26 and 37 of a good faith conference or attempt to confer with the other party to resolve the 

dispute shall not apply. Voluntary compliance with this provision of Rules 26 and 37 is 

encouraged, and if the Court deems it appropriate in any given case, it will re-impose the meet 

 

1

This resolves Plaintiff’s motion for discovery and to be allowed to propound interrogatories on Defendants. (Doc. 

47.) 

Case 1:13-cv-01899-AWI-SKO Document 63 Filed 10/03/16 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

and confer requirement. A moving party should not seek to compel production of documents 

which are equally available to that moving party, such as documents in plaintiff's central file. 

Amendment to Pleadings

5. The deadline for amending the pleadings is November 28, 2016. Plaintiff’s motions 

for an extension of time up to the deadline to amend pleadings to provide identifying information 

for service of process on Defendant Cisco2are granted. (Doc. 50, 55.) Plaintiff’s failure to 

provide such identifying information by November 28, 2016, will result in recommendation that, 

pursuant to Rule 4(m), Defendant Cisco be dismissed from this action. 

Filing Deadlines

6. The deadline for the completion of all discovery, including filing all motions to compel 

discovery, is January 30, 2017. Absent good cause, discovery motions will not be considered if 

filed after the discovery deadline. Therefore, discovery requests and deposition notices must be 

served sufficiently in advance of the discovery deadline to permit time for a response and time to 

prepare and file a motion to compel. 

7. The deadline for filing all dispositive motions (other than a motion for summary 

judgment for failure to exhaust) is March 17, 2017.

8. A request for an extension of a deadline set in this order must be filed on or 

before the expiration of the deadline in question and will only be granted on a showing of 

good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2 As previously noted, whether Defendant Cisco is “Francisco Hernandez” is unclear, but at this 

juncture, the burden is on Plaintiff to provide sufficient information for the USM to identify and 

serve this defendant. 

Case 1:13-cv-01899-AWI-SKO Document 63 Filed 10/03/16 Page 3 of 3