ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

(ECF No. 46)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

(ECF Nos. 41, 47)

ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.

Michael Gonzales ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against defendants Garcia, Brosman, B. Zavala, Herrick, Tacara, Franklin, Rodriguez, Escalante, and Davis. (ECF No. 42.)

On February 14, 2018, the Court issued an Order setting a mandatory scheduling conference for May 14, 2018 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 10 (EPG) before the undersigned judge and requiring initial disclosures within 30 days of the Order. (ECF No. 44.) The initial disclosures include two types of information that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses: 1) individuals likely to have discoverable information; and 2) documents that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control. (ECF No. 44 at 2.)

On March 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time of 30 days to make disclosures. (ECF No. 46.) For the reasons stated in the motion, the Court GRANTS the motion. The Court also notes that Plaintiff stated that he was in the process of obtaining information. The parties are only required to disclose documents that are presently in their possession, custody, or control. (ECF No. 44 at 2.) To the extent that the parties come into possession of documents in the future, they are required to make supplemental disclosures. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) (requiring a party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a) to supplement or correct its disclosure or response in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing).

Plaintiff has also filed two motions requesting an Order directing defense counsel to participate in an early settlement conference by phone. (ECF Nos. 41, 47.) The Court understands that Plaintiff is eager to enter into settlement negotiations. However, the Court cannot force defense counsel to engage in those discussions. Settlement is a topic that will be discussed at the mandatory scheduling conference in this case. Therefore, the Court must deny Plaintiff's motions at this time.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

IT IS SO ORDERED.