Knapp v. Cate, et al.

Filing 104

ORDER GRANTING 103 Motion to Stay Discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 05/25/2012. (14 Day Deadline to file Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition) (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY KNAPP,

10
11

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01779-BAM PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO STAY DISCOVERY

v.
(ECF No. 103)

12

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE

13

Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Eric Charles Rodney Knapp (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and

16

in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding

17

on the third amended complaint, filed September 29, 2010, against Defendants Koenig, Pate, Otto,

18

Backlund, Roberson, Clay, Gibb, Hannah, Semsen, Lyons, and Esquer for deliberate indifference

19

to Plaintiff’s need for single cell status in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On March 5, 2012,

20

an order issued opening discovery in this action. (ECF No. 92.) On March 9, 2012, Defendants filed

21

a motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. (ECF No. 96.) On May 18, 2012,

22

Defendants filed a motion for a protective order. (ECF No. 103.)

23

Defendants move for a protective order from discovery propounded by Plaintiff in this action.

24

Defendants request that the discovery in this action be stayed until the Court resolves the motion to

25

revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and for an order limiting Plaintiff to twenty five requests

26

for admission and requiring him to reformulate his requests so they are straightforward and factual.

27

“Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought . . . , and for good

28

cause shown, the court . . . may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person
1

1

from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P.

2

26(c). The Court enjoys “wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v. City of Seattle, 863

3

F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1989).

4

Upon review of Defendants’ motion and the request for admissions attached as an exhibit ,

5

the Court finds that it is in the interest of justice to shield Defendants from the expense and burden

6

responding to any discovery requests pending resolution of their motion. Accordingly, IT IS

7

HEREBY ORDERED that discovery in this action is stayed pending resolution of Defendants’

8

motion for a protective order. Plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to

9

Defendants’ motion for a protective order within fourteen days from the date of service of this order.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
cm411

May 25, 2012

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2