Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00423/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00423-15/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD ASHKER, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

C. PFEIFFER, et al.,

 Defendant(s).

Case No. 1:21-cv-00423-ADA-EPG (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO 

EXCHANGE DOCUMENTS

Todd Ashker (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On June 22, 2022, the Court issued an order requiring the parties to file scheduling and 

discovery statements. (ECF No. 79). The parties have now filed their statements. (ECF Nos. 

81 & 86).

The Court has reviewed this case and the parties’ statements. In an effort to secure the 

just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of this action,1the Court will direct that certain 

documents that are central to the dispute be promptly produced.2

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 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 disclose additional information without a discovery request.”). 

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 91 Filed 10/04/22 Page 1 of 3
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

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Each party has sixty days from the date of service of this order to serve opposing 

parties, or their counsel, if represented, with copies of the following documents

and/or evidence that they have in their possession, custody, or control, to the 

extent the parties have not already done so:

3

a. Documents regarding exhaustion of Plaintiff’s claims, including 602s, 

Form 22s, and responses from the appeals office.

b. Plaintiff’s institution and unit classification committee hearing results

and notices of housing placement from January 1, 2016, through June 8, 

2022.

c. Chronos for transfer or Administrative Segregation placement related to 

the incident(s) alleged in the complaint. 

d. Relevant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

policies and memorandums concerning placement of inmates in 

restrictive housing, including reasons for placement, procedures for 

placement and periodic evaluation, and conditions of confinement in 

restrictive housing. (See ECF No. 81, p. 3).

e. Witness statements and evidence that were generated from 

investigation(s) related to the event(s) at issue in the complaint, such as 

investigation(s) stemming from the processing of Plaintiff’s 

grievance(s).

4

3 Defense counsel is requested to obtain these documents from Plaintiff’s institution(s) of confinement. If 

defense counsel is unable to do so, defense counsel should inform Plaintiff that a subpoena duces tecum is 

required. 

As Defendant(s) have indicated that a subpoena duces tecum may be necessary to obtain relevant 

documents from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) (ECF No. 81, p. 4), 

Plaintiff may file a request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum for documents in the possession, custody, 

or control of the CDCR without first requesting those documents from Defendant(s).

4 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.”).

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 91 Filed 10/04/22 Page 2 of 3
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. If any party obtains documents and/or other evidence described above later in 

the case from a third party, that party shall provide all other parties with copies 

of the documents and/or evidence within thirty days.

3. Parties do not need to produce documents or evidence that they have already 

produced.

4. Parties do not need to produce documents or evidence that were provided to 

them by the opposing party. 

5. Parties may object to producing any of the above-listed documents and/or 

evidence. Objections shall be filed with the Court and served on all other parties 

within sixty days from the date of service of this order (or within thirty days of 

receiving additional documents and/or evidence). The objection should include 

the basis for not providing the documents and/or evidence. If Defendant(s) 

object based on the official information privilege, Defendant(s) shall follow the 

procedures described in the Court’s scheduling order. If a party files an 

objection, all other parties have fourteen days from the date the objection is filed 

to file a response. If any party files a response to an objection, the Court will 

issue a ruling on the objection.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2022 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court notes that Defendant(s) only need to produce documents such as a Confidential Appeal Inquiry 

or a Use of Force Critique to the extent those documents contain witness statements related to the incident(s) 

alleged in the complaint and/or evidence related to the incident(s) alleged in the complaint that will not be 

provided to Plaintiff separately.

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 91 Filed 10/04/22 Page 3 of 3