Goolsby v. Gonzales et al

Filing 55

ORDER Granting Defendant's Motion Protective Order (Doc. 48 , ORDER Staying Discovery, Except For Limited Purpose Described By This Order, Pending Resolution Of Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/13/2014. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THOMAS GOOLSBY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:11-cv-00394-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
(Doc. 48.)

vs.

ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY, EXCEPT
FOR LIMITED PURPOSE DESCRIBED BY
THIS ORDER, PENDING RESOLUTION
OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

FERNANDO GONZALES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

Thomas Goolsby (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20

pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the

21

Complaint commencing this action on March 8, 2011. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on

22

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed on September 17, 2012, against defendant T.

23

Steadman (“Defendant”) for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.1 (Doc. 13.)

24

On August 14, 2014, the court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order which opened the

25

discovery phase for this action and established a deadline of April 14, 2015 for the parties to

26
27
1

28

On April 22, 2013, the court dismissed all remaining claims and defendants from this action based on
Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 17.)
1

1

complete discovery.2

2

protective order staying discovery. (Doc. 48.) Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.

3

II.

(Doc. 47.)

On August 15, 2014, Defendant filed a motion for a

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER – RULE 26(c)

4

Rule 26(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, AA party or any person

5

from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action

6

is pending. . . The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from

7

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

8

26(c)(1). The court has inherent authority to manage the cases before it. Landis v. N. Am. Co.,

9

299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power

10

inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of

11

time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the

12

exercise of judgment which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance”);

13

Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007).

14

Stays of proceeding in federal court, including stays of discovery, are committed to the

15

discretion of the trial court. See, e.g., Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987).

16

Defendant’s Motion

17

Defendant moves for a protective order staying all discovery in this action, except for

18

discovery related to whether Plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies, until the court

19

rules on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant argues that in light of the

20

Ninth Circuit’s early summary-judgment requirement on the issue of exhaustion in Albino v.

21

Baca,3 the court should use its discretion to limit discovery to evidence concerning exhaustion,

22

if necessary, and leave until later, if it becomes necessary, discovery directed to the merits of

23

the case. Defendant argues that in this case, it would be an undue burden and expense for

24
2

25
26
27
28

Ordinarily, the Court issues the Discovery/Scheduling Order in this type of case soon after one of the
defendants files an answer to the complaint. In this case, Defendant filed an Answer on August 13, 2014, and the
court issued the Discovery/Scheduling Order on August 14, 2014. (Docs. 46, 47.) Defendant has noted that he
requested, in a footnote to the Answer, that the court defer issuance of the Discovery/Scheduling Order until after
resolution of the motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 46 at 1 fn.1.) Due to its unexpected inclusion within the
body of the Answer, Defendant’s request went unnoticed by the Court.
3

Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014).
2

1

Defendant to respond to discovery requests or propound them at this time, since the pending

2

motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies encompasses all

3

of Plaintiff’s claims in this case and, if granted, will result in the dismissal of this case.

4

Defendant requests that the court stay discovery on the underlying merits of the complaint and

5

limit discovery, if any, to the issue of exhaustion of Plaintiff’s administrative remedies.

6

Discussion

7

Based on Defendant’s arguments and a review of Defendant=s pending motion for

8

summary judgment, the court finds good cause to grant Defendant=s motion for a protective

9

order. See Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 801-02 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendant=s motion for

10

summary judgment is based on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

11

remedies for all of the claims at issue in this case. Resolution of Defendant=s motion for

12

summary judgment may cause discovery to be unnecessary. Plaintiff has not opposed a stay of

13

discovery, and the court does not anticipate a lengthy stay pending resolution of the motion for

14

summary judgment. Therefore, based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for a protective

15

order staying discovery shall be granted. Except for discovery related to whether Plaintiff

16

failed to exhaust administrative remedies, the parties are precluded from responding to any

17

discovery requests or serving further discovery requests until the stay is lifted. If the parties

18

have been served with discovery requests that do not relate to Plaintiff’s exhaustion of

19

administrative remedies, they shall retain the discovery for later consideration after the stay has

20

been lifted.

21

III.

CONCLUSION

22

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

23

1.

24
25

Defendant=s motion for a protective order, filed on August 15, 2014, is
GRANTED;

2.

Discovery in this action, which commenced on August 14, 2014, is STAYED,

26

except for discovery related to whether Plaintiff has exhausted administrative

27

remedies, pending resolution of the motion for summary judgment filed by

28

Defendant on August 13, 2014; and
3

1

3.

2

Following the resolution of Defendant=s motion for summary judgment, the
Court shall issue a new scheduling order if needed.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 13, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
4