Goolsby v. Cate et al

Filing 64

ORDER vacating 59 Order on Motion for Protective Order and denying 63 Motion for Reconsideration as moot signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 4/16/2014. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

THOMAS GOOLSBY,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.
CATE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11cv01773 LJO DLB PC
ORDER VACATING ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
(Document 59)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AS MOOT
(Document 63)

16
17

Plaintiff Thomas Goolsby (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

18

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

19

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

20
21
22

on October 25, 2011.
This action is proceeding on First Amendment retaliation claims and due process claims
against Defendants Holland, Steadman, Gutierrez, Noyce, Tyree, Gentry, Eubanks, Medrano and

23

Holman.
24
25
26
27
28

On November 26, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss based on failure to state a
claim and exhaustion. Defendants are not moving to dismiss the retaliation claim. The motion
has been converted into a Motion for Summary Judgment and the Court is awaiting the parties’
further briefing, as well as their position on whether discovery related to exhaustion is necessary.
1

1
2
3
4

On March 25, 2014, Defendants filed a motion seeking a protective order relieving them
of their obligation to respond to Plaintiff’s written discovery. On April 2, 2014, the Court
granted the motion without an opposition because discovery has not yet opened in this action.
On April 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. He states that because

5

Defendants are not moving to dismiss the retaliation claim, their motion for a protective order
6
7
8
9

should be denied.
Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s arguments, the Court VACATES the April 2, 2014,
order granting Defendants’ motion for a protective order. At the time the Court granted the

10

order, it was not aware that the discovery related to a claim that was not at issue in the pending

11

Motion for Summary Judgment.

12

Discovery has not yet opened in this action. However, in consideration of the length of

13

time this action has been pending, as well as the fact that Plaintiff’s retaliation claim will go

14

forward regardless of the ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court finds good

15

cause to permit the discovery that has been served. This order does not permit Plaintiff to

16
17
18
19
20

propound any additional discovery.
Accordingly, Defendants SHALL respond to the discovery that relates to the retaliation
claim within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

April 16, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2