Goolsby v. Holland, et al.
Filing
54
ORDER GRANTING Defendant's 44 Motion to Stay Discovery; ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 50 Motion for Stay of Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/26/2016. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
THOMAS GOOLSBY,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
KIMBERLY HOLLAND,
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:13-cv-01100-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO STAY DISCOVERY
(ECF No. 44)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR STAY OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 50)
19
20
Plaintiff Thomas Goolsby is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
21
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendant Kimberly Holland
22
for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.
23
I.
Relevant Procedural History
24
On June 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed his first motion to compel discovery and for sanctions. (ECF
25
No. 26.) That motion was granted in part, and the Court ordered certain discovery be provided, and
26
that the parties meet and confer in writing on certain issues. (ECF No. 45.) On April 26, 2016,
27
Defendant requested an extension of time to provide the discovery responses, (ECF No. 48), which the
28
Court granted, (ECF No. 51). Those responses are currently due on or before June 30, 2016.
1
On February 16, 2016, Plaintiff also filed a second motion to compel, which is pending. (ECF
1
2
No. 39.)
On March 10, 2016, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff’s
3
4
response to that motion is due June 15, 2016, by this Court’s order. (ECF No. 46.)
Currently before the Court are motions to stay filed by both parties; that is, one filed on March
5
6
10, 2016 by Defendant, (ECF No. 44.), and one filed on April 19, 2016 by Plaintiff, (ECF No. 50.)
7
Neither party has yet responded to the other party’s motion for stay, but the Court does not find any
8
responses necessary at this time, as the parties will not be prejudiced by the consideration of their
9
motions. Local Rule 230(l).
10
II.
Parties’ Motions for Stay
11
Defendant seeks a motion to stay all discovery in this action, pending a ruling on the motion for
12
summary judgment and Defendant’s concurrent request that Plaintiff be required to post security as a
13
vexatious litigant. (ECF No. 44-1.) Plaintiff seeks a stay of Defendant’s motion for summary
14
judgment, arguing that he requires certain discovery to be provided in order to properly oppose the
15
summary judgment motion, including discovery which is the subject of his pending second motion to
16
compel. (ECF No. 50.)
17
In the meantime, the Court has been informed by the parties that they seek a settlement
18
conference, which has been tentatively scheduled for June 21, 2016. The Court finds the case will
19
benefit from such a conference, and separate orders will issue on that matter. The upcoming settlement
20
conference also impacts the parties’ current requests for a stay of these proceedings.
21
A district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its
22
own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299
23
U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). The party seeking the stay bears the burden of establishing the need to stay the
24
action. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708.
25
In this case, the Court finds a short-term stay of all non-settlement proceedings until June 30,
26
2016 is necessary to allow the parties to focus on the upcoming settlement conference. The parties’
27
time and resources are better spent on the settlement negotiations, rather than causing both the parties
28
2
1
and the Court to expend resources on discovery and motion practice, which may not ultimately be
2
necessary if the matter is resolved through settlement.
3
Following the outcome of the settlement conference in this matter, the Court will issue a
4
scheduling order, if necessary, setting deadlines for briefing on the various pending motions and
5
outstanding discovery matters, and seeking status reports from the parties, as needed.
6
III.
Conclusion and Order
7
For the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
8
1.
Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 44) is GRANTED;
9
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay the pending motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 50) is
GRANTED; and
10
11
3.
All non-settlement related proceedings in this matter are stayed until June 30, 2016.
12
13
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
April 26, 2016
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?