Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00935/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00935-14/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

ROBERT MEDINA, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GUSTAVO MARTINEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00935-KES-EPG (PC)

SCHEDULING ORDER 

Exhaustion Motions: March 24, 2025

Defendant Identification: January 23, 2025

Motions to Compel: July 23, 2025

Non-expert Discovery: August 25, 2025

Dispositive Motions: September 24, 2025

This Court now sets a schedule for this action through the filing of dispositive motions.

I. DISCOVERY PROCEDURES

Discovery is now open, and the parties are granted leave to serve discovery requests.

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

follows:

1. The parties may take the following types of discovery from other parties:

a. Interrogatories (an interrogatory is a written question or request for 

information and “may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under 

Rule 26(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2));

b. Requests for Production (a request for production is a written request that the 

opposing party produce documents or electronically stored information, 

“including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound 

recordings, images, and other data or data compilations,” or a written request 

Case 1:23-cv-00935-KES-EPG Document 50 Filed 12/26/24 Page 1 of 9
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

that the opposing party produce any designated tangible things. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 34(a)(1));

c. Requests for Admissions (a request for admission is a written request that 

the opposing party “admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth 

of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1)” that relate to “(A) facts, 

the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; [or] (B) the 

genuineness of any described documents.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1)); and

d. Depositions (a deposition is where one party (or that party’s counsel) 

questions someone under oath, and a court reporter is present to record

the proceedings).

1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(B), 

Defendant(s) may depose any witness confined in a prison on 

the condition that, at least fourteen (14) days before such a 

deposition, Defendant(s) serve all parties with the notice required 

by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1). Plaintiff’s failure to 

participate in a properly noticed deposition could result in sanctions 

against Plaintiff, including monetary sanctions and/or dismissal of 

this case. 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, relieving 

the court reporter of the requirement to be in the physical presence 

of the witness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28(a)(1) 

during that deposition.

2. If Plaintiff wishes to take a deposition, Plaintiff must file a motion 

requesting the Court’s permission to do so. Before filing a motion, 

Plaintiff must contract with a licensed court reporter, also known as 

Certified Shorthand Reporters (CSRs). CSRs are not court 

employees; they are private individuals. Plaintiff is responsible for 

paying CSRs their fees for taking the deposition and producing 

Case 1:23-cv-00935-KES-EPG Document 50 Filed 12/26/24 Page 2 of 9
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

a transcript. Plaintiff’s pro se or in forma pauperis status does not 

entitle Plaintiff to a free deposition. Every motion for leave to take 

deposition must include the name of the person to be deposed,

the name and contact information for the court reporter with whom 

Plaintiff contracted, the estimated cost for the CSR’s time and the 

recording, and the source of funds for payment of that cost, or the 

motion may be summarily denied for failure to comply with this 

order. The Court may request input from Plaintiff’s institution of 

confinement to determine if the deposition(s) can proceed in a safe 

and secure manner before ruling on a motion for a deposition. 

2. A party may serve on any other party no more than 15 interrogatories, 15 requests for 

production of documents, and 15 requests for admission. If a party wishes to serve 

additional discovery requests, that party may file a motion for additional discovery 

requests with the Court, explaining why additional discovery requests are necessary.

3. Discovery requests and responses should be sent to the opposing part(ies), or their 

counsel if represented. They should not be filed with the Court.

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

request is first served. This means that written discovery requests must be served 

within a timeframe that allows the opposing party a forty-five (45) day period to 

respond prior to the close of non-expert discovery. Any party who is served a request 

where the forty-five (45) day period for response would end after the close of nonexpert discovery is entitled to object to that request on the ground that the request is 

untimely.

5. 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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Documents are deemed to be

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. If 

Defendant(s) cannot obtain documents from Plaintiff’s institution(s) of confinement, 

Case 1:23-cv-00935-KES-EPG Document 50 Filed 12/26/24 Page 3 of 9
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

Defendant(s) shall clearly respond that a third-party subpoena will be necessary to 

obtain documents from Plaintiff’s institution(s) of confinement.

6. If any party or third party withholds a document on the basis of privilege, that party or 

third party shall provide a privilege log to the requesting party identifying the date, 

author, recipients, general subject matter, and basis of the privilege within thirty days

after the date that responses are due. Failure to provide a privilege log within this time 

shall result in a waiver of the privilege. Additionally, if a party is claiming a right to 

withhold witness statements and/or evidence gathered from investigation(s) into the 

incident(s) at issue in the complaint based on the official information privilege or 

confidentiality, the withholding party shall submit the withheld witness statements 

and/or evidence to the Court for in camera review, along with an explanation of why 

the witness statements and/or evidence should be withheld.

1 The witness statements 

and/or evidence shall be Bates stamped and emailed to 

EPGorders@caed.uscourts.gov. The withholding party shall also file and serve a 

notice that they have complied with this order. All other claims of privilege may be 

challenged via a motion to compel.

1

See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 94–95 (2006) (“[P]roper exhaustion improves the quality of 

those prisoner suits that are eventually filed because proper exhaustion often results in the creation of an 

administrative record that is helpful to the court. When a grievance is filed shortly after the event giving 

rise to the grievance, witnesses can be identified and questioned while memories are still fresh, and 

evidence can be gathered and preserved.”).

The “common law governmental privilege (encompassing and referred to sometimes as the official 

or state secret privilege) . . . is only a qualified privilege, contingent upon the competing interests of the 

requesting litigant and subject to disclosure. . . .” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 

198 (9th Cir. 1975) (citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has since followed Kerr in requiring in camera

review and a balancing of interests in ruling on the government’s claim of the official information 

privilege. See, e.g., Breed v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 542 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 1976) (“[A]s 

required by Kerr, we recognize ‘that in camera review is a highly appropriate and useful means of dealing 

with claims of governmental privilege.’”) (quoting Kerr v. U. S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 

394, 406 (1976)); Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033–34 (9th Cir. 1990), as amended on 

denial of reh’g (Feb. 27, 1991), as amended on denial of reh’g (May 24, 1991) (“Government personnel 

files are considered official information. To determine whether the information sought is privileged, courts 

must weigh the potential benefits of disclosure against the potential disadvantages. If the latter is greater, 

the privilege bars discovery.”) (citations omitted).

Case 1:23-cv-00935-KES-EPG Document 50 Filed 12/26/24 Page 4 of 9
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

7. If Plaintiff seeks documents from someone who is not a party in this case, Plaintiff 

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

request for a subpoena, Plaintiff must: (1) identify the documents sought and from 

whom; (2) explain why the documents are relevant to the claims in this case; and 

(3) make a showing in the request that the records are only obtainable through a third 

party. 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 Marshals 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 obtainable from Defendant(s) through a 

Rule 34 request for production of documents.

8. 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.

9. The parties have until July 23, 2025, to file motion(s) to compel further discovery 

responses. Motions to compel can be used to challenge failure of a party to respond to 

a discovery request, failure to produce documents on the basis of privilege, or failure 

to produce privilege log. The motion(s) should include a copy of the request(s) and 

any response to the request(s) at issue.

10. The Court will not require an informal discovery dispute conference prior to the filing 

of any discovery motion. Nor are the parties required to follow the procedures set forth 

in Local Rule 251 for dealing with discovery motions, including the preparation of a 

joint discovery statement. Instead, the parties shall follow the briefing schedule 

provided by Local Rule 230(l) for any discovery motion brought pursuant to Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure 26–37 and 45. 

11. The parties are advised that each party is responsible for planning and timing their 

own discovery. This means that the Court will not sua sponte extend the deadline for 

Case 1:23-cv-00935-KES-EPG Document 50 Filed 12/26/24 Page 5 of 9
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

6

any party to file motions to compel or to respond and/or serve written discovery 

requests.

II. DEFENDANT IDENTIFICATION AND SERVICE

Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis on his Eighth Amendment claim against 

Defendants J. Alvarez, Gustavo Martinez, and First-Name-Unknown (FNU) Martinez. Only 

Defendant Alvarez was served and answered Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 37). The Court has 

previously set a deadline for Plaintiff to identify and serve Defendants G. Martinez and FNU 

Martinez for January 23, 2025, stating: 

On September 13, 2024, waivers of service mailed to both Gustavo 

Martinez and FNU Martinez at FCJ by U.S. Marshals were returned 

unexecuted. (ECF No. 32). Notes indicate that G. Martinez is no 

longer at FCJ and that FNU Martinez could not be identified, and 

that more information is needed. (Id. at 1, 3). To be able to proceed 

against Defendants G. Martinez and FNU Martinez, Plaintiff must 

identify and serve these Defendants.

. . . 

Plaintiff has 120 days from the date of this order to identify and 

serve Defendants G. Martinez and FNU Martinez.

(ECF No. 34, Sep. 25, 2024).

Because the discovery is now open, Plaintiff may request documents from Defendant 

Alvarez in order to identify the Doe Defendant(s). Plaintiff may also request a subpoena duces 

tecum if this information is not available from Defendant Alvarez.

Per the Court’s previous order (ECF No. 34), Plaintiff has until January 23, 2025, to

identity and serve Defendants G. Martinez and FNU Martinez.

2

If Plaintiff fails to identify and 

serve these Defendants by this deadline, these defendants may be dismissed from the case.

III. PAGE LIMITS, COURTESY COPIES, AND REQUIREMENT TO RESPOND

The parties are advised that unless prior leave of the Court is obtained before the filing 

deadline,3 all moving and opposition briefs or legal memoranda shall not exceed twenty-five (25) 

2 Plaintiff may request an extension of this deadline with the Court. Any motion for extension of 

this deadline, must set forth good cause include what efforts Plaintiff is making to identify and locate these 

defendants.

3 Parties may seek leave by filing a short motion.

Case 1:23-cv-00935-KES-EPG Document 50 Filed 12/26/24 Page 6 of 9
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

7

pages. Reply briefs by the moving party shall not exceed ten (10) pages. These page limits do not 

include exhibits. The parties shall not file multiple or supplemental briefs to circumvent this rule.

Unless otherwise ordered, all motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, motions 

concerning discovery, motions pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7, 11, 12, 15, 41, 55, 

56, 59 and 60, and Local Rule 110, shall be briefed pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).4 Failure to 

timely oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. Local Rule 

230(l). Unsigned affidavits or declarations will be stricken, and affidavits or declarations not 

signed under penalty of perjury have no evidentiary value. Opposition to all other motions need 

be filed only as directed by the court.

Pursuant to Local Rule 133(j), depositions should not be filed. However, counsel 

referencing a deposition in any filing must submit pertinent portions of the deposition as 

exhibit(s) and email a copy of the entire deposition as a .pdf file to

EPGorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Counsel should not email links to file sharing services that 

require the Court to download the deposition. 

Defendant(s) shall mail or deliver courtesy hardcopies of all motions over 10 pages in 

length to the court at 2500 Tulare St., Room 1501, Fresno, CA 93721. Courtesy hard copies shall 

reflect the CM/ECF document numbers and pagination.

IV. NON-EXPERT DISCOVERY DEADLINE

The deadline for the completion of all non-expert discovery is August 25, 2025. As 

discussed above, this deadline includes all written discovery requests and responses. Any written 

discovery request must be made so that the opposing party is allowed the entire amount of time 

allotted for response by this deadline.

V. EXHAUSTION MOTION DEADLINE 

The deadline for Defendant(s) to present any challenge for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies is March 24, 2025.

5 Failure to raise the exhaustion defense by this

deadline will result in waiver of the defense. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir.

2014) (providing that the exhaustion question should be decided as early as feasible).

4 As noted below, the deadline to file oppositions is different for dispositive motions.

5

If Defendant(s) need an extension of this deadline, Defendant(s) shall file a motion requesting an 

extension of this deadline.

Case 1:23-cv-00935-KES-EPG Document 50 Filed 12/26/24 Page 7 of 9
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

8

VI. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINE

The deadline for filing dispositive motions, including motions for summary judgment 

(other than dispositive motions based on the defense of failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies), is September 24, 2025. The deadline to file oppositions to dispositive motions, 

including motions for summary judgment, is thirty days from the date the motion is filed. The 

deadline to file replies to oppositions is fourteen days from the date the opposition is filed. If a

party needs an extension of any of these deadlines, that party may file a motion for an extension 

of time.

If Defendant(s) file a motion for summary judgment, Defendant(s) shall simultaneously 

provide Plaintiff with the notice and warning required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th 

Cir. 1998). In addition to the language suggested by Rand in Appendix A of that opinion, id. at 

962, this notice must also include a short and plain statement of the Local Rule 260 requirements 

and be titled “This Notice is Required to be Given to you by the Court.”

Additionally, within fourteen days after a ruling on any dispositive motion, if the case 

proceeds, Defendant(s) shall confer with Plaintiff and file a report indicating each party’s position 

on whether a settlement conference would be productive. 

VII. FURTHER DATES AND DEADLINES 

If this case is still proceeding after dispositive motions have been resolved, or if no 

dispositive motions are filed, the Court will set expert disclosure deadlines,6a pretrial conference, 

pretrial deadlines, and a trial date.’

VIII. EFFECT OF THIS ORDER

This order represents the Court’s best estimated schedule through dispositive motions.

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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

6 While the Court is not setting a deadline for expert disclosures at this time, the parties may 

provide their expert disclosures at any time. Such disclosures must conform with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(a)(2)(B)-(C).

Case 1:23-cv-00935-KES-EPG Document 50 Filed 12/26/24 Page 8 of 9
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

9

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 26, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00935-KES-EPG Document 50 Filed 12/26/24 Page 9 of 9