# (PC) Jackson v. Shirley > District Court, E.D. California · October 18, 2024 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10638061 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** October 18, 2024 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10638061 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 AARON JACKSON, Case No. 1:23-cv-00509-JLT-EPG (PC) 9 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO EXCHANGE DOCUMENTS 12 HEATHER SHIRLEY, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Aaron Jackson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 16 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 On August 14, 2024, the Court issued an order requiring the parties to file scheduling 18 and discovery statements. (ECF No. 24). Defendants have filed theirs. (ECF No. 27). Plaintiff’s 19 scheduling and discovery statement is now due December 16, 2024. (ECF No. 31). 20 The Court has reviewed this case and Defendants’ statement. To secure the just, speedy, 21 and inexpensive disposition of this action,1 the Court will direct that certain documents that are 22 central to the dispute be promptly produced.2 23 24 25 1 See, e.g., United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 508–09 (9th Cir. 2008) (“We begin with the principle that the district court is charged with effectuating the speedy and orderly administration of 26 justice. There is universal acceptance in the federal courts that, in carrying out this mandate, a district court has the authority to enter pretrial case management and discovery orders designed to ensure that 27 the relevant issues to be tried are identified, that the parties have an opportunity to engage in appropriate discovery and that the parties are adequately and timely prepared so that the trial can proceed efficiently 28 and intelligibly.”). 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. Each party has sixty days from the date of service of this order to serve opposing 3 parties, or their counsel, if represented, with copies of the following documents 4 and/or evidence that they have in their possession, custody, or control, to the 5 extent the parties have not already done so.3 This order applies to all documents 6 including confidential documents. Moreover, the parties are required to produce 7 these documents, or lodge objections as described below, without awaiting a 8 discovery request. 9 a. Documents regarding exhaustion of Plaintiff’s claims, including 602s, 10 Form 22s, and responses from the appeals office, as well as CDCR form 11 602 HC Health Care Grievances; and CDCR form 602 Standard 12 Grievances, including OGT Grievance Log number 388426. (ECF No. 13 27 at 2). 14 b. Witness statements and evidence, if any, that were generated from 15 investigation(s) related to the event(s) at issue in the complaint, such as 16 an investigation stemming from the processing of Plaintiff’s 17 grievance(s).4 18 19 20 2 Advisory Committee Notes to 1993 Amendment to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding Rule 26(a) (“The enumeration in Rule 26(a) of items to be disclosed does not prevent a court from 21 requiring by order or local rule that the parties disclose additional information without a discovery request.”). 22 3 Defense counsel is requested to obtain these documents from Plaintiff’s institution(s) of confinement. If defense counsel is unable to do so, defense counsel should inform Plaintiff that a third 23 party subpoena is required. 4 See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 94–95 (2006) (“[P]roper exhaustion improves the quality 24 of those prisoner suits that are eventually filed because proper exhaustion often results in the creation of 25 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, 26 and evidence can be gathered and preserved.”). The Court notes that Defendant(s) only need to produce documents such as a Confidential 27 Appeal Inquiry or a Use of Force Critique to the extent those documents contain witness statements related to the incident(s) alleged in the complaint and/or evidence related to the incident(s) alleged in the 28 complaint that will not be provided to Plaintiff separately. 2 1 c. All of Plaintiff’s medical records related to the incident(s) and/or 2 condition(s) at issue in the case (ECF No. 27 at 2); 3 d. WSP’s Quarterly Water Reports from 2018 through the present (ECF 4 No. 27 at 3); 5 e. Water Board Compliance Order (ECF No. 27 at 3); 6 f. A copy of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible 7 things that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control 8 and may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be 9 solely for impeachment. 10 2. If any party obtains documents and/or other evidence described above later in 11 the case (including, but not limited to, documents and/or other evidence from a 12 third party), that party shall provide all other parties with copies of the 13 documents and/or evidence within thirty days. The failure of a party to comply 14 with this requirement may result, among other things, in the party not being able 15 to rely on the pertinent information later in the case. 16 3. Parties do not need to produce documents or evidence that they have already 17 produced. 18 4. Parties do not need to produce documents or evidence that were provided to 19 them by the opposing party. 20 5. Parties may object to producing any of the above-listed documents and/or 21 evidence. Objections shall be filed with the Court and served on all other parties 22 within sixty days from the date of service of this order (or within thirty days of 23 receiving additional documents and/or evidence). The objection should include 24 the basis for not providing the documents and/or evidence. If Defendant(s) 25 object based on the official information privilege, Defendant(s) shall follow the 26 procedures described in the Court’s scheduling order. If a party files an 27 objection, all other parties have fourteen days from the date the objection is filed 28 3 1 to file a response. If any party files a response to an objection, the Court will 2 issue a ruling on the objection. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. >|! Dated: _ October 18, 2024 [sf hey — 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10638061. Public record. Not legal advice.