Opinion
1:19-cv-00367-JLT-SKO (PC)
04-08-2022
LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS, Plaintiff, v. VASQUEZ, et al., Defendants.
ORDER CONTINUING EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO JUNE 22, 2022 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FILED APRIL 4, 2022 (DOC. 100)
SHEILA K. OBERTO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, Larry William Cortinas, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is currently scheduled for an evidentiary hearing on April 19, 2022, at 10:30 a.m. On April 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed an “Ex Parte Request for Subpoena Duce[s] Tecum for April 19, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. upon the Corcoran Appeals Coordinator D. Gore Jr. Records Only Request” (“Request”) (Doc. 100). The Court construes Plaintiff's filing as a request for issuance of a subpoena to D. Gore Jr., to produce documents at the evidentiary hearing.
II. CONTINUANCE OF THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING
To allow the Defendants an opportunity to respond to the Request, and on its own motion, the Court continues the evidentiary hearing to Wednesday, June 22, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., via Zoom Videoconference.
The district court has the inherent power to control its docket. Ferdick v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. v. Lakewood Engineering & Mfg. Corp., 982 F.2d 363, 368 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Courts are invested with inherent powers that are ‘governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in court to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases”) (citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991)).
Defense counsel shall arrange for Plaintiff's participation. Prior to the hearing, counsel shall contact the undersigned's courtroom deputy at WKusamura@caed.uscourts.gov to request the Zoom videoconference connection information. The Court will issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum, as appropriate.
No later than May 23, 2022, defense counsel shall confer with Plaintiff to determine whether either side will seek to admit documentary evidence at the hearing. If either side wishes to do so, the party shall identify the documents and provide copies of them to the opponent by May 30, 2022, unless the opponent already has copies of the documents.
No later than June 15, 2022, defense counsel shall lodge an exhibit list detailing the documentary evidence (with applicable exhibit numbers) that both sides will seek to introduce at the hearing, as well as copies of the evidence, by email to SKOorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Following the hearing, counsel shall file an exhibit list of all the documentary evidence admitted at the hearing.
III. DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST (Doc. 100)
Defendants are DIRECTED to file a substantive response to Pro Se Plaintiff's Request no later than April 15, 2022. If Plaintiff wishes to file a reply, he must do so no later than April 29, 2022. Following consideration of the parties' submission(s), the Court will issue a decision on whether Plaintiff is entitled to the documents he contends are relevant to determining whether he exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing this action.
A “district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Local Rules 302(c)(1); see also In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating orderly and expeditious resolution of disputes is of great importance to rule of law and delay in reaching merits is costly in money, memory, manageability, and confidence in process).
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The evidentiary hearing is continued to June 22, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. via Zoom Videoconference;
2. Defendants shall file a substantive response to Plaintiff's request filed April 4, 2022, (Doc. 100), no later than Friday, April 15, 2022. Plaintiff may file a reply by no later than April 29, 2022; and
3. Defendants are directed to serve a courtesy copy of this Order to Plaintiff via email to the Litigation Coordinator at Plaintiff's current institution.
IT IS SO ORDERED.