Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00894/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00894-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

BUTA SINGH, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-0894-MCE-KJN PS

ORDER

On September 9, 2014, defendant Ramawatar Sah, then represented by counsel, filed an 

answer to the second amended complaint. (ECF No. 29.) On September 29, 2014, the District

Judge assigned to this case issued an order granting defendant Sah’s counsel’s motion to 

withdraw from representation in this action. (ECF No. 32.) The grant of this motion left 

defendant Sah proceeding pro se in this matter. (Id. at 3.) To date, no other defendant named in 

the second amended complaint has made an appearance in this case. Based on the record, it 

appears that all defendants that have made an appearance in this action are proceeding in propria 

persona. Accordingly, this action has been assigned to the undersigned for all appropriate pretrial proceedings pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).

On January 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendant Sah to provide initial 

responses to interrogatories and document requests propounded by plaintiff. (ECF No. 37.) 

Case 2:13-cv-00894-MCE-KJN Document 39 Filed 02/03/15 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

However, this motion is premature. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties to an 

action “may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by

Rule 26(f),” unless the parties have stipulated to conduct discovery at an earlier time. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(d). As of this date, the court has not held an initial scheduling conference, or even set 

one for a hearing. Furthermore, there is no indication that the parties have stipulated to permit 

discovery at an earlier time. Consequently, plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice as 

premature.

Because no initial scheduling conference has been scheduled as of this time, the court 

shall set such a conference through this order. Accordingly, an initial scheduling conference is 

set for Thursday March 5, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 25 before the undersigned. 

In light of the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 37) is DENIED without prejudice as premature.

2. A status (pre-trial scheduling) conference is set for Thursday March 5, 2015, at 10:00 

a.m., in Courtroom No. 25 before the undersigned. All parties shall appear by counsel or in 

person if acting without counsel. 

3. Not later than fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference, the parties shall meet 

and confer, and file a joint status report briefly describing the case and addressing the following:

a. Service of process;

b. Possible joinder of additional parties;

c. Any expected or desired amendment of the pleadings;

d. Jurisdiction and venue;

e. Anticipated motions and their scheduling;

f. The report required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 outlining the proposed discovery 

plan and its scheduling, including disclosure of expert witnesses;

g. Future proceedings, including setting appropriate cut-off dates for 

discovery and law and motion, and the scheduling of a pretrial conference and trial;

h. Special procedures, if any;

i. Estimated trial time; 

Case 2:13-cv-00894-MCE-KJN Document 39 Filed 02/03/15 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

j. Modifications of standard pretrial procedures due to the simplicity or 

complexity of the proceedings; 

k. Whether the case is related to any other cases, including bankruptcy;

l. Whether a settlement conference should be scheduled;

m. Whether counsel will stipulate to the undersigned acting as settlement 

judge and waive disqualification by virtue of his so acting, or whether they prefer to have a 

settlement conference conducted before another judge; and

n. Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition of 

this matter. 

4. Failure to obey the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court’s Local Rules,1or an 

order of this court, may result in dismissal of the action or a judgment of default, monetary 

sanctions, and/or any other appropriate sanctions. Although the court liberally construes the 

pleadings and filings of pro se litigants, they are required to abide by all deadlines and procedural 

requirements. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2015

 

 

1 A copy of the court’s Local Rules may be obtained from the Clerk’s Office or on the court’s 

website at http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/rules/local-rules/. 

Case 2:13-cv-00894-MCE-KJN Document 39 Filed 02/03/15 Page 3 of 3