Woodard v. McGee et al

Filing 24

ORDER granting 22 Motion to Stay Discovery as set forth. Signed by Honorable Mark E. Ford on July 23, 2018. (hnc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
BART WAYNE WOODARD
v.

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 6:18-CV-06013

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MCGEE, et. al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. Currently before the Court is Defendant McGee’s First
Motion to Stay Discovery. (ECF No. 22).
In this Motion, Defendant argues discovery in this matter should be stayed until the Court
rules on Defendant’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment, which argues that Plaintiff failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies for his claims. Specifically, Defendant asserts that, if granted,
his Motion will likely terminate the case. Therefore, according to Defendant, a stay of discovery
at this stage will promote judicial efficiency and prevent unnecessary expenditure of time and
resources by the parties.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), “[t]he Court may, for good cause, issue
an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden
or expense” of discovery. The party seeking the protective order or stay bears the burden of
demonstrating good cause for issuance of the order. See General Dynamics Corp. v. Selb.
Manufacturing. Co., 481 F.2d 1204, 1212 (8th Cir. 1973). The Court must also consider the
hardship granting the protective order might cause the non-moving party. Id. The trial court has
particularly broad discretion in determining discovery disputes. See Hofer v. Mack Trucks Inc.,
981 F.2d 377, 381-2 (8th Cir. 1992).
1

I find Defendant has demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant a temporary stay of discovery
in this matter. The Court does not need any additional facts in order to rule on Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment. Further, Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by this stay as he will be able to
conduct discovery, if necessary, once the Motion for Summary Judgment is ruled upon.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 22) is hereby GRANTED.
If the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied in whole or in part, Defendant will have sixty (60)
days from the date of the Order Denying the Motion to complete discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of July 2018.
/s/

Mark E. Ford

HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2