Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

ELLIOTT v. REDDY, 2:10-cv-2980 MCE KJN P. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140721655 Visitors: 19
Filed: Jul. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 18, 2014
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel. Defendants' motions for summary judgment were resolved by order filed June 25, 2014, and this action now proceeds solely on plaintiff's claims against Dr. Beck for deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious medical needs, and medical negligence. (ECF No. 153.) On July 8, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation to reopen discovery regarding the elements of causation and damages. The parties c
More

ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel. Defendants' motions for summary judgment were resolved by order filed June 25, 2014, and this action now proceeds solely on plaintiff's claims against Dr. Beck for deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious medical needs, and medical negligence. (ECF No. 153.)

On July 8, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation to reopen discovery regarding the elements of causation and damages. The parties contend that good cause exists to reopen discovery to determine the current medical status and treatment of plaintiff. Specifically, the parties need to obtain plaintiff's medical records from January 1, 2013, to the present; defendants need to determine the type, extent, and location of plaintiff's medical treatment since January 1, 2013; and some of plaintiff's healthcare providers need to be deposed. (ECF No. 154 at 1.)

The parties did not indicate how much time was needed to accomplish the additional discovery.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Additional discovery shall be completed on or before October 31, 2014. Any motion pertaining to discovery shall be noticed for hearing on or before the court's October 16, 2014 law and motion calendar.

2. On or before November 21, 2014, the parties shall file a joint statement informing the court of the following:

1. Whether a settlement conference should be scheduled in this action. 2. If the parties agree that a settlement conference should be scheduled, state:

a. Whether the parties agree that the undersigned magistrate judge may preside, OR whether another magistrate judge should be assigned; and

b. Identify any dates through April 2015 when any party may not be available to attend the settlement conference.

3. If the parties do not agree that a settlement conference should be scheduled, identify:

a. The anticipated length of trial; and

b. Any dates through 2015 when any party may not be available for pretrial or trial proceedings.

4. The parties shall inform the court of any other significant matters or requests in this action.

3. Upon review of the parties' joint statement, the court will issue a further scheduling order.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer