Valencia v. Kokor

Filing 75

ORDER DENYING Defendant's 74 Motion to Stay Discovery, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 03/01/2016. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL G. VALENCIA,

12
13

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:13-cv-01391 LJO DLB PC
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT KOKOR’S
MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

v.
(Document 74)

14

WINFRED KOKOR,

15

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff Daniel G. Valencia (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in

18

this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Second

19

Amended Complaint, which states a claim under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Kokor

20

and Sundaram.

21
22
23

Discovery opened as to Defendant Kokor on February 17, 2016. Defendant Sundaram’s
February 16, 2016, motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6) is pending.
On February 17, 2016, Defendant Kokor filed a motion to stay discovery pending resolution

24

of Defendant Sundaram’s motion to dismiss. The Court deems the motion suitable for decision

25

without an opposition pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

26

DISCUSSION

27

The Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery. Dichter–Mad Family

28

Partners, LLP v. U.S., 709 F.3d 749, 751 (9th Cir. 2013); Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606,
1

1

616 (9th Cir. 2012). Pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1), the Court may, for good cause, issue a protective

2

order forbidding or limiting discovery. The avoidance of undue burden or expense is grounds for the

3

issuance of a protective order, Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), and a stay of discovery pending resolution of

4

potentially dispositive issues furthers the goal of efficiency for the courts and the litigants, Little v.

5

City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.1988) (stay of discovery pending resolution of immunity

6

issue).

7

Defendant Kokor requests that discovery be stayed to avoid duplication of costs and efforts.

8

He states, “the current posture of the case will send the litigation along two different tracks because

9

discovery will begin for Dr. Kokor long before it is known whether the claim against Dr. Sundaram

10

will survive. If discovery in this case proceeds at different paces, and at different times, for different

11

Defendants, it will burden the parties and result in duplicated efforts and increased costs.” ECF No.

12

74-1, at 3.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

In certain situations, the Court will stay discovery to avoid undue burden or expense. In this
case, however, the action is proceeding against Defendant Kokor regardless of the outcome of the
motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Sundaram. Both Defendants have the same counsel, meaning
that if the case continues against Defendant Sundaram, counsel will know what discovery has
already been completed so as to avoid duplication of effort and costs. Moreover, given the similarity
of the claims, Defendant Sundaram, if he remains in this action, will benefit from discovery
conducted by Defendant Kokor.
For these reasons, the Court finds that a stay of discovery is not warranted. Defendant
Kokor’s motion is therefore DENIED.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

March 1, 2016

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2