Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01773/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01773-38/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

ANDREW R. LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-1773-DAD-SKO (PC)

ORDER STRIKING AS UNTIMELY THE 

PARTIES’ EXHIBITS FOR FAILING TO 

COMPLY WITH THE SCHEDULING ORDER 

FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING (Doc. 170)

(Docs. 188, 190, 191)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Andrew R. Lopez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 10, 2010. This action is 

currently proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed on March 23, 2012, against 

Defendants Garcia, Zamora, Espinosa, Jackson, Drew, Olmedo, Munoz, Fields, White, Rousseau, 

Martinez, Beer, Gray, Beard, and Gipson (“Defendants”) for violating Plaintiff’s federal 

constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of his conditions of confinement at California 

State Prison, Corcoran in Corcoran, California in 2008 and 2009.

On May 21, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that 

Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing this action. (Doc. 105.) 

Plaintiff and Defendant filed their opposition and reply briefs, respectively, after receiving 

extensions of time. (Doc. 118, 132.) 

On March 23, 2015, the Court issued a Findings and Recommendation which 

recommended Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be resolved on the majority of 

Plaintiff’s claims. The Court found that a triable issue of fact existed requiring an evidentiary 

Case 1:10-cv-01773-DAD-SKO Document 192 Filed 08/19/16 Page 1 of 6
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

hearing on Plaintiff’s retaliation claims against Defendants Garcia and Beer arising out of 

incidents alleged to have occurred on July 22, 2009, July 24, 2009, and September 30, 2009. 

(Doc. 137.) The District Judge adopted the Findings and Recommendations on May 19, 2015. 

(Doc. 141.) On July 24, 2015, an order issued setting a limited evidentiary hearing (“the 

“Evidentiary Hearing”) on Plaintiff’s exhaustion of available administrative remedies as to his 

retaliation claims against Defendants Garcia and Beer, which was to set take place on October 22, 

2015. (Doc. 143.) 

The Evidentiary Hearing was rescheduled to March 3, 2016, at Defendants’ request 

because Defendant Beer was scheduled to be on vacation on October 22, 2015. (Docs. 145, 147.) 

The March 3, 2016 Evidentiary Hearing date was vacated at the parties’ request as Plaintiff had 

been unable to meet and confer with Defendants’ counsel regarding witnesses and evidence due 

to Plaintiff’s recent trial in another matter and his move to Pelican Bay State Prison. (Docs. 159, 

160, 164.) 

A telephonic conference was set for March 2, 2016, to discuss a new date for the 

Evidentiary Hearing. (Doc. 164.) In the telephonic conference, Plaintiff indicated that he was 

having difficulty obtaining access to his legal property which he needed for the Evidentiary 

Hearing. Defendants’ counsel offered to contact the Litigations Coordinator at various prison 

facilities where Plaintiff believed his legal property might be located, and a further telephonic 

conference was set for March 9, 2016. (Doc. 166.) During the March 9, 2016 telephonic 

conference, it was confirmed that the impediments to Plaintiff’s access to his legal property had 

been resolved. (Doc. 169.)

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Evidentiary Hearing Scheduling Order

At the March 9, 2016 conference, the parties agreed to reschedule the Evidentiary Hearing 

to August 24, 20161 with various pre-hearing deadlines. (Doc. 169.) On March 16, 2016, a 

scheduling order for the Evidentiary Hearing (the “Scheduling Order”) issued which set forth the 

parties’ agreed-upon dates for the filing of motions and oppositions for incarcerated witnesses; 

 

1 The Evidentiary Hearing was rescheduled to August 23, 2016 due to a court calendaring conflict. (Doc. 171.) 

Case 1:10-cv-01773-DAD-SKO Document 192 Filed 08/19/16 Page 2 of 6
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

required the parties to meet and confer to agree upon and identify witnesses and exhibits on or 

before July 22, 2016; and required defense counsel to submit joint copies of exhibits and lists of 

witnesses to be used at the hearing by no later than August 8, 2016. (Doc. 170.) Plaintiff filed a 

timely motion requesting his and other incarcerated witnesses’ attendance at the Evidentiary 

Hearing which was granted as to Plaintiff, but denied as to all other incarcerated witnesses. 

(Docs. 172, 176.) 

B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Reschedule the Evidentiary Hearing

On August 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to reschedule the Evidentiary Hearing 

indicating he believed it would interfere with his “Parole Suitability Hearing,” which is scheduled 

to take place on October 25, 2016. (Doc. 177.) On August 8, 2016, Defendants filed a response 

to Plaintiff’s motion and provided evidence to demonstrate that holding the Evidentiary Hearing 

on August 23, 2016, would not interfere with Plaintiff’s Parole Suitability Hearing. (Doc. 182.) 

Defendants also submitted a joint stipulation for Plaintiff’s attendance at the Evidentiary Hearing 

via video conference. (Id.) On August 9, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion2to vacate the 

Evidentiary Hearing, approved the parties’ stipulation for Plaintiff’s appearance via video 

conference, and required Defendants to provide Plaintiff with a duplicate copy of exhibits to be 

used during the Evidentiary Hearing. (Doc. 183.) 

C. The Parties’ Exhibits and Witness Lists 

On August 5, 2016, Defendants filed their witness list, exhibit list, and four sets of their 

exhibits for use in the Evidentiary Hearing. (Docs. 179, 180.) An order issued on August 8, 

2016, for Defendants to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to meet 

and confer with Plaintiff as required by the Scheduling Order. (Doc. 181.) On August 10, 2016, 

Defendants filed their response to the order to show cause stating that when they met and 

conferred with Plaintiff about witnesses and exhibits, Plaintiff told defense counsel he was not 

prepared to discuss witnesses or exhibits for the Evidentiary Hearing and indicated he intended to 

file a motion to reschedule the Evidentiary Hearing. (Doc. 186.) As a result, Defendants only 

 

2

As noted in the order, Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the evidentiary hearing was found to be completely baseless, 

raising questions of his candor to the Court and his underlying motivation. (See Doc. 187, p. 4.) 

Case 1:10-cv-01773-DAD-SKO Document 192 Filed 08/19/16 Page 3 of 6
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

possessed the required information to timely file their own lists of witnesses and exhibits. (Id.) 

This satisfied the August 8, 2016, order to show cause and demonstrated that Plaintiff failed to 

comply with the Scheduling Order by not being prepared to discuss witnesses and exhibits with 

defense counsel to allow for the joint filing of lists of witness and exhibits. (Doc. 181.) 

Accordingly, on August 12, 2016, an order issued that discharged the August 10, 2016 

order to show cause; precluded Plaintiff from presenting any witnesses or exhibits which were not 

identified in compliance with the Scheduling Order, or relied upon in opposition to Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment; allowed Plaintiff to only use the specific documents submitted in 

opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment that were found to create a triable issue 

of fact (see Doc. 187, p. 5) which were forwarded to Plaintiff with that order; and precluded 

Plaintiff from calling any witnesses other than himself and those identified in the Defendants’ 

witness list who appear at the Evidentiary hearing. (Doc. 187.) 

D. The Parties’ Modification of the Scheduling Order 

On August 15, 2016, Defendants filed a list and binders of supplemental exhibits and 

Plaintiff filed objections to Defendants’ exhibits which had been filed on August 5, 2016. (Docs. 

188, 189.) On August 17, 2016, Defendants filed a notice of lodging their supplemental exhibits 

and Plaintiff filed 207 pages of exhibits. (Docs. 190, 191.) Neither side even attempted to 

explain why they did not file these exhibits on or before August 8, 2016,3as was required by the 

Scheduling Order.

DISCUSSION

As with any order under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the overall 

scheduling of a legal action, the Scheduling Order in this case “may be modified only for good 

cause and with the judge=s consent.” F.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). Such a scheduling order “controls the 

course of the action unless the court modifies it.” F.R.Civ.P. 16(d). Scheduling orders “are the 

heart of case management,” Koplve v. Ford Motor Co., 795 F.2d 15, 18 (3rd Cir. 1986), and are 

 

3 Although Plaintiff signed his exhibit list on August 2, 2016, his proof of service indicates that he did not give it to 

prison staff for mailing until August 13, 2016. (Doc. 191, p. 2.) Thus, even under the prison mailbox rule, Plaintiff’s 

list of exhibits was untimely. See Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009) quoting Houston v. Lack , 

487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988) (“notice is deemed filed on the date the prisoner ‘delivered the notice to prison authorities 

for forwarding to the [d]istrict [c]ourt’”).

Case 1:10-cv-01773-DAD-SKO Document 192 Filed 08/19/16 Page 4 of 6
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

intended to alleviate case management problems. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 

F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). A “scheduling conference order is not a frivolous piece of paper, 

idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded without peril.” Id. Parties must “diligently 

attempt to adhere to that schedule throughout the subsequent course of the litigation.” Jackson v. 

Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999); see also Marcum v. Zimmer, 163 F.R.D. 

250, 254 (S.D. W.Va. 1995).

This Court=s Local Rule 144(d) also provides:

Counsel shall seek to obtain a necessary extension from the Court or from other 

counsel or parties in an action as soon as the need for an extension becomes 

apparent. Requests for Court-approved extensions brought on the required filing 

date for the pleading or other documents are looked upon with disfavor.

The Scheduling Order required the parties to meet and confer, by telephone or other 

means, to agree upon and identify their joint exhibits, if any. (Doc. 170, pp. 3-4.) Joint exhibits 

were to be pre-marked with the prefix “JT” and numbered sequentially beginning with 1 (e.g. JT1, JT-2, etc.). (Id.) Plaintiff’s exhibits were to be pre-marked with the prefix “PX” and numbered 

sequentially beginning with 100 (e.g., PX-100, PX-101, etc.). (Id.) Defendants’ exhibits were to

be pre-marked with the prefix “DX” and numbered sequentially beginning with 200 (e.g., DX200, DX-201, etc.). (Id.) Defendant’s counsel was to submit 4 copies of the exhibits, with 

exhibit lists, by no later than August 8, 2016. (Id.) Nothing in the scheduling order allowed for 

the filing of exhibits beyond the August 8, 2016 deadline. (Id.) 

Here, despite having had numerous months, over a year, to prepare for the Evidentiary 

Hearing, both sides submitted exhibits for the Evidentiary Hearing which were filed beyond the 

date set forth in the Scheduling Order. Neither side offered any explanation, or even attempted to 

show good cause for an extension of the filing deadline to be considered -- let alone granted. Nor 

is there any excuse for such lack of diligence. 

Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, authorizes district courts to impose a 

wide range of sanctions when a party fails to comply with the rules of Federal Civil Procedure or 

with court orders. Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 585, 589 (9th Cir. 1983). The 

Local Rule which corresponds with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, 

Case 1:10-cv-01773-DAD-SKO Document 192 Filed 08/19/16 Page 5 of 6
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

“[f]ailure of counsel, or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 

the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 

Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising 

that power, a court may impose sanctions even up to dismissal of an action. Thompson v. 

Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Here, the parties’ exhibits filed on August 15 and 17, 2016, failed to comply with the 

Scheduling Order. It is within the Court’s inherent power to impose the sanction of striking the 

untimely exhibits from this action and prohibiting their use at the Evidentiary Hearing. 

Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831. 

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ supplemental exhibits, filed on 

August 15, 2016, (Doc. 188), and Plaintiff’s exhibits, filed on August 17, 2016, (Doc. 191), will 

not be considered at the Evidentiary Hearing and are hereby STRICKEN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01773-DAD-SKO Document 192 Filed 08/19/16 Page 6 of 6