Gamez v. Gonzalez, et al.
Filing
153
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 152 Motion for Stay of Discovery, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/14/14. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SERGIO ALEJANDRO GAMEZ,
Plaintiff,
12
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY
(Doc. 152.)
vs.
13
14
1:08-cv-01113-LJO-GSA-PC
F. GONZALEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
17
18
I.
BACKGROUND
19
Sergio Alejandro Gamez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil
20
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this
21
action on August 1, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds with the Fourth Amended
22
Complaint filed by Plaintiff on November 8, 2013, against defendants Holland, Gonzalez,
23
Tyree, Gentry, Adame, and Jakabosky on Plaintiff’s retaliation and due process claims. (Doc.
24
147.)
25
On December 19, 2013, defendants Gentry and Gonzales filed an Answer to the Fourth
26
Amended Complaint. (Doc. 149.) On January 23, 2014, the court issued a Scheduling Order
27
which opened the discovery phase for this action and established pretrial deadlines. (Doc.
28
151.)
1
On February 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for stay of the discovery phase in this
1
2
action. (Doc. 152.)
3
II.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR STAY
4
The court has inherent authority to manage the cases before it. Landis v. N. Am. Co.,
5
299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power
6
inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of
7
time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the
8
exercise of judgment which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.”)
9
Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes “any order which justice requires
10
to protect a party ... from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden of expense.”
11
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Stays of proceeding in federal court, including stays of discovery, are
12
committed to the discretion of the trial court. See, e.g., Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th
13
Cir. 1987).
14
Plaintiff requests a stay of the discovery phase in this action, pending service of process
15
upon defendants Holland, Tyree, Adame, and Jakabosky. Plaintiff argues that he is unable to
16
proceed with discovery until after all of the defendants have made an appearance in the action.
17
Plaintiff requests a stay of discovery until all of the defendants have filed Answers, or for 21
18
days, to serve the interest of comity and preserve judicial resources.
19
Discussion
20
As a rule, the Court opens the discovery phase in cases such as Plaintiff’s following the
21
filing of an Answer by one or more of the defendants to the action.
22
who have appeared to begin the discovery process.
23
afterwards, the discovery period and other pretrial deadlines may be extended on a party’s
24
motion or sua sponte by the court. Service of process upon multiple defendants is often a
25
lengthy process, and service is not always successful upon every defendant.
26
not lightly stay litigation, due to the possibility of prejudice to defendants. In this case, two of
27
the defendants filed an Answer to the operative complaint on December 19, 2013. (Doc. 149.)
28
Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the court to stay discovery until all of the defendants
2
This allows the parties
If other defendants join the action
The Court does
1
have filed Answers, or for an arbitrary 21-day period. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for stay
2
shall be denied.
3
III.
Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion
4
5
CONCLUSION
for stay of discovery, filed on February 13, 2014, is DENIED.
6
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10
11
12
February 14, 2014
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
6i0kij8d
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?