Hicks v. Robles, 1:18-cv-01481-AWI-EPG. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190621876
Visitors: 11
Filed: Jun. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 20, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND MOTION FOR COURT ORDER DIRECTING PRESERVATION OF PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE AND ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE UPDATED INITIAL DISCLOSURES (ECF Nos. 49) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . The Court conducted a Scheduling Conference in this matter on June 17, 2019. Plaintiff Michael J. Hicks appeared telephonically, as did counsel for Defendants, Erik Gutierrez. At the Scheduling Conference, the Court considered Plaintiff's Motion to Appoi
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND MOTION FOR COURT ORDER DIRECTING PRESERVATION OF PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE AND ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE UPDATED INITIAL DISCLOSURES (ECF Nos. 49) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . The Court conducted a Scheduling Conference in this matter on June 17, 2019. Plaintiff Michael J. Hicks appeared telephonically, as did counsel for Defendants, Erik Gutierrez. At the Scheduling Conference, the Court considered Plaintiff's Motion to Appoin..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND MOTION FOR COURT ORDER DIRECTING PRESERVATION OF PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE AND ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE UPDATED INITIAL DISCLOSURES
(ECF Nos. 49)
ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.
The Court conducted a Scheduling Conference in this matter on June 17, 2019. Plaintiff Michael J. Hicks appeared telephonically, as did counsel for Defendants, Erik Gutierrez. At the Scheduling Conference, the Court considered Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 52) and Motion for Court Order Directing Preservation of Photographic Evidence (ECF No. 43).
For the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 52) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
For the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiff's Motion for Court Order Directing Preservation of Photographic Evidence (ECF No. 43) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must supplement his initial disclosures to provide the names of individuals likely to have discoverable information—along with the subjects of that information—that Plaintiff may use to support his claims claims within thirty (30) days of this order. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(a)(1)(A)(i).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
