Rodriguez v. Hubbard et al

Filing 140

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Outcome of Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Exhaustion 133 ; ORDER DISMISSING as Moot Plaintiff's Motion to Stay His Requirement to Provide Discovery Responses Pending Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment 137 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 9/1/15. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUIS VALENZUELA RODRIGUEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

15
16

HUBBARD, et al.,

17
Defendants.
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00858 LJO DLB (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING OUTCOME OF
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED
ON EXHAUSTION
[ECF No. 133]
ORDER DISMISSING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STAY HIS REQUIREMENT TO
PROVIDE DISCOVERY RESPONSES PENDING
RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
[ECF No. 137]

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff Luis Valenzuela Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on
Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint against Defendants Biter, Phillips, Da Viega, Ozaeta, Betzinger,
Gregory, Garza, Wegman, Alic, Speidell and Rankin on claims of violation of the Free Exercise
Clause of the First Amendment, violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s
safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

28
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

On January 30, 2015, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 109.)
According to the Order, the deadline for the parties to complete discovery was set for June 29, 2015,
and the deadline to file dispositive motions was set to August 27, 2015. Since then, the Court has
extended the deadline to complete discovery to October 30, 2015, and the deadline to file dispositive
motions to December 28, 2015.
On April 29, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on exhaustion.
Plaintiff was granted three extensions of time to file an opposition to the motion. The deadline was
moved to August 17, 2015, and Plaintiff did not timely file an opposition.
On July 22, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for stay of discovery pending the outcome of their
motion for summary judgment based on exhaustion since a ruling on the motion could dispose of the
entire action. After being granted an extension of time, on August 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion for stay. Defendants filed a reply to the opposition on August 28, 2015. In
addition, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay the requirement that he provide discovery responses pending a
ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
The Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery. Dichter-Mad Family Partners,
LLP v. U.S., 709 F.3d 749, 751 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 117 (2013); Hunt
v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406
F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Pursuant to Rule
26(c)(1), the Court may, for good cause, issue a protective order forbidding or limiting discovery. The
avoidance of undue burden or expense is grounds for the issuance of a protective order, Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(c), and a stay of discovery pending resolution of potentially dispositive issues furthers the goal of
efficiency for the courts and the litigants, Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)
(stay of discovery pending resolution of immunity issue). The propriety of delaying discovery on the
merits of the plaintiff’s claims pending resolution of an exhaustion motion was explicitly recognized
by the Ninth Circuit. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), cert. denied,
135 S.Ct. 403 (2014); see also Gibbs v. Carson, No. C-13-0860 THE (PR), 2014 WL 172187, at *2-3
(N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2014).

28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

In this case, the Court finds good cause to stay discovery pending a ruling on the motion for
summary judgment. Defendants persuasively argue that the motion for summary judgment could
dispose of the entire action thereby mooting discovery. Plaintiff argues that discovery should be
allowed since he requires discovery in order to oppose the motion for summary judgment. However,
Defendants are correct that the deadline for filing an opposition has already passed and therefore the
request to conduct discovery to oppose Defendants’ motion is moot. Moreover, Plaintiff’s arguments
are not convincing in light of the fact that he has also filed a motion which requests a stay of discovery
with respect to his responses pending a ruling on the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff raises
the same concerns of unnecessary time and resources that may be expended if discovery continued
pending a ruling on the motion for summary judgment. In light of the above, the Court finds good
cause to stay discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

13
14

1) Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending a ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment based on exhaustion is GRANTED;

15
16
17

2) Discovery is STAYED pending resolution of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment;
and
3) Plaintiff’s motion for stay of discovery his discovery responses is DISMISSED as moot.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

September 1, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3