Harper v. Blazo, 1:17-cv-01717-LJO-EPG (PC). (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190618998
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 14, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 14, 2019
Summary: ORDER FOLLOWING HEARING ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Jason Harper ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On June 14, 2019, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 35). Plaintiff telephonically appeared on his own behalf. Counsel William McCaslin telephonically appeared on behalf of Defendant. For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, IT IS O
Summary: ORDER FOLLOWING HEARING ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Jason Harper ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On June 14, 2019, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 35). Plaintiff telephonically appeared on his own behalf. Counsel William McCaslin telephonically appeared on behalf of Defendant. For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, IT IS OR..
More
ORDER FOLLOWING HEARING
ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.
Jason Harper ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On June 14, 2019, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 35). Plaintiff telephonically appeared on his own behalf. Counsel William McCaslin telephonically appeared on behalf of Defendant.
For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Defense counsel shall promptly contact the Court's Alternate Dispute Resolution Coordinator, Sujean Park (spark@caed.uscourts.gov), to schedule a settlement conference.
2. If the case fails to settle at the settlement conference, within three weeks after the date of the settlement conference Defendant shall make a supplemental submission regarding the following:
a. The date that Defendant submitted documents to the Court for in camera review;
b. Whether Defendant or the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation have any responsive documents to Plaintiff's requests for production numbers 2, 3, 4, and 5 regarding documents related to any Cal/OSHA investigations. Counsel agreed Defendants would not limit the response to request Number 2 based on whether any inspection was a "surprise." The Court notes the legal obligations to preserve Cal/OSHA investigation documents set forth in Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, section 5189; and
c. Legal authority supporting Defendant's decision to withhold witness statements related to the incident, in light of Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 95 (2006) ("proper exhaustion improves the quality of those prisoner suits that are eventually filed because proper exhaustion often results in the creation of an administrative record that is helpful to the court. When a grievance is filed shortly after the event giving rise to the grievance, witnesses can be identified and questioned while memories are still fresh, and evidence can be gathered and preserved.").
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
