Tate

(PC) Thornberry v. Tate

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 10, 20201:19-cv-00825California775 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL LEE THORNBERRY, Case No. 1:19-cv-00825-AWI-EPG (PC)

Plaintiff, ORDER FOLLOWING INITIAL

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

v.

HAROLD TATE, Defendant. 16 Daniel Lee Thornberry (“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, which includes a state law claim. On November 10, 2020, the Court held an Initial Scheduling Conference (“Conference”). Plaintiff telephonically appeared on his own behalf. Counsel David Yengoyan telephonically appeared on behalf of Defendant. During the Conference, and with the benefit of the scheduling conference statements provided by the parties, the Court and the parties discussed relevant documents in this case and their possible locations. In addition to opening discovery generally, the Court ordered that certain documents that are central to the dispute be promptly produced. Therefore, in an effort to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.