ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, currently incarcerated at California State Prison-Corcoran (CSP-COR), who proceeds in forma pauperis and without counsel1 in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following this court's January 16, 2014 ruling on defendants' motions for summary judgment, this action now proceeds against seven defendants — Brockett, Kelly, Jaffee, Martin, Chapman, Vance and Kennedy — on the following claims: (1) against Brockett, for alleged sexual misconduct; (2) against Kelly and Jaffee, for deliberate indifference to serious mental health needs, failure to protect, and supervisory liability; (3) against Martin, for deliberate indifference to serious mental health needs, and failure to protect; and (4) against Chapman, Vance and Kennedy, for failure to protect. (See ECF No. 277, 259.)

On February 27, 2014, the parties were directed to inform the court whether a settlement conference may be helpful in resolving this action. All defendants responded in the affirmative. (ECF Nos. 286, 287.) Plaintiff responds that a settlement conference may be helpful after additional discovery and the filing of pretrial statements, and after plaintiff speaks independently with defense counsel in a telephone conference arranged by the court. This order addresses plaintiff's concerns, and confirms that a settlement conference has now been scheduled in this action for September 11, 2014.

Plaintiff's discovery concerns are without merit. Discovery closed on February 24, 2011, with limited extensions of time for specific further disclosures. The court finds unavailing plaintiff's allegations that defendants failed to disclose all relevant evidence. While prior orders of this court admonished defendants and compelled further discovery (see e.g. ECF No. 206, 244), all defendants and defense counsel filed sworn declarations stating that they had produced all relevant evidence. (See ECF Nos. 215-18.) Although defendant Brockett subsequently produced additional evidence (see e.g. ECF No. 216 at 3; 219, 228, 233-38, 244-48), triggering further admonishment from the court (ECF No. 244), and the disclosure of yet more evidence (ECF No. 245-46), plaintiff was accorded additional time to consider and address this new evidence in a supplemental opposition to defendant Brockett's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 248). Moreover, the undersigned has consistently cautioned that the omission of relevant evidence may result in the imposition of sanctions, either on summary judgment or at trial. (See, e.g., ECF No. 206 at 3; 244 at 2.) The undersigned found no grounds for imposing sanctions on summary judgment (see ECF No. 259 at 6 n.4, and related text), and it will be within the trial judge's discretion to assess whether any party has withheld relevant evidence. There is no basis for authorizing further discovery at this time.

Moreover, plaintiff will not be given an order to conduct an independent telephone conversation with defense counsel. Defendant Brockett no longer has counsel. The remaining defendants are represented by common defense counsel. However, due to plaintiff's inappropriate prior correspondence with defense counsel, plaintiff remains admonished, under threat of sanction, including dismissal of this action, to refrain from independent contact with counsel. (See ECF No. 206.) The court perceives no value in authorizing a private conversation between plaintiff and defense counsel (unless defense counsel desires to initiate such a call).

For these reasons, plaintiff's objections to setting an immediate settlement conference are overruled.

The undersigned notes one additional matter, for consideration by the settlement judge. The undersigned recently granted the request of defendant Brockett's counsel to withdraw, effective April 1, 2014. (ECF No. 284.) The Attorney General's Office has declined to represent Brockett. (ECF No. 285.) Defendant Brockett is encouraged to attempt to secure alternate legal representation. (ECF Nos. 284, 285.) In the event Brockett does not secure counsel before the settlement conference, the settlement judge may (or may not) consider a request by defendant Brockett to appear by telephone rather than in person.

In accordance with the above, and pursuant to the court's order filed April 3, 2014, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's requests for additional discovery and for an independent telephone conference with defense counsel (see ECF No. 280), are denied.

2. This case is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd, on Thursday, September 11, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., at the U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814, in Courtroom No. 27 (8th floor). (See ECF No. 288.)

3. Plaintiff will appear at settlement by video-conference, from California State Prison-Corcoran, as directed by separate order.

4. A representative with full and unlimited authority to negotiate and enter into a binding settlement on defendants' behalf shall attend in person.

5. Those in attendance at settlement (whether in person, by video-conference or by telephone) must be prepared to discuss the claims, defenses and requested damages in this action. The failure of any counsel, party or authorized person subject to this order to appear may result in the imposition of sanctions and cancellation of the settlement conference.

6. The parties are directed to submit confidential settlement conference statements to Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd, on or before September 4, 2014, to the following email address: dadorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Plaintiff and defendant Brockett (if not represented by counsel) shall mail their respective settlement conference statements to the Clerk's Office of this court, to arrive no later than September 4, 2014. Furthermore, each party shall file a Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. See Local Rule 270 (d).

SO ORDERED.