McCoy v. Kelso, et al.

Filing 73

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 68 Motion for Protective Order and STAYING Merits-Based Discovery; ORDER DENYING Defendants' 70 Motion for Extension of Time as MOOT signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/2/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

JOSEPH RAYMOND MCCOY,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
STRONACH, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12cv00983 AWI DLB PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
STAYING MERITS-BASED DISCOVERY
(Document 68)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS
MOOT
(Document 70)

Plaintiff Joseph Raymond McCoy (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed his complaint on June 19, 2012. This
action is proceeding on an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendants
Stronach, Gonzales, LeMay, Beltran, Fisher, Snell and Tann.

21

The action is currently in discovery.
22
23
24
25
26

On November 5, 2014, Defendants filed a timely motion for summary judgment based on
exhaustion. The motion is pending.
On November 10, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for a protective order. The Court
deems the motion suitable for decision without an opposition pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

27
28
1

1

DISCUSSION

2
3
4

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); Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606,
616 (9th Cir.2012). Pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1), the Court may, for good cause, issue a protective

5

order forbidding or limiting discovery. The avoidance of undue burden or expense is grounds for
6
7
8
9
10

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).
Pursuant to the procedure set forth in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014),

11
12

motions for summary judgment are now required for raising exhaustion issues. This means that

13

based on the Court’s general practice, merits-based discovery will have opened prior to the time

14

Defendants are required to file an exhaustion challenge.

15
16
17
18

In this case, discovery opened on August 7, 2014. Between the commencement of
discovery and Defendants’ November 5, 2014, motion for summary judgment based on
exhaustion, Plaintiff has propounded two sets of Requests for Production of Documents and one
set of Requests for Admissions.1 ECF No. 70.

19

Here, the pending motion for summary judgment is potentially dispositive of all claims in
20
21
22
23
24

this case and could render Plaintiff’s discovery requests moot. Moreover, Defendants have not
delayed in requesting a protective order.2 In such cases, the Court finds good cause to grant the
protective order relating only to merits-based discovery. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1170 (“If discovery
is appropriate, the district court may in its discretion limit discovery to evidence concerning

25
1

26

The Discovery and Scheduling Order required that motions for summary judgment based on exhaustion be filed
by November 5, 2014.

27

2

28

The Court notes that Defendants filed a request for reconsideration of the initial disclosure requirement of the
Discovery and Scheduling Order on August 22, 2014. However, while the request was pending, Defendants timely
served their initial disclosures on Plaintiff. Accordingly, there was no resulting delay in discovery.
2

1

exhaustion, leaving until later-if it becomes necessary-discovery directed to the merits of the

2

suit.”).

3
4

Plaintiff will not be prejudiced as to the pending motion because, if he believes that
discovery related to exhaustion is necessary, he may file a request pursuant to Rule 56(d). Any

5

such request must be filed thirty days (30) days of the date of service of this order. Otherwise,
6
7
8
9

Plaintiff must file his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment within thirty (30)
days of the date of service of this order.
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to merits-based discovery, and

10

Defendants are relieved from responding to discovery already served by Plaintiff. Merits-based

11

discovery is also stayed at this time. If any of Plaintiff’s claims survive the exhaustion

12

challenge, the Court will issue an amended scheduling order allowing additional time for

13

discovery related to the remaining claims.

14
15

As the Court has granted the protective order, Defendants’ request for additional time to
respond to Plaintiff’s discovery is DENIED AS MOOT.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

December 2, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3