Griffin v. Johnson et al

Filing 70

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery 68 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/8/16. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN, Case No. 1:13-CV-01599-LJO-BAM (PC) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 15 A. JOHNSON, et al., 16 (ECF No. 68) Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Matthew James Griffin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se 19 and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action 20 proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint for excessive force and for deliberate 21 indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against 22 Defendants Johnson, Gonzales, Valdez, Munoz, Sexton, Ross, Thor, Doe, Kul, Busch, 23 Bell, and Smith. This matter is set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge 24 Kendall J. Newman on May 4, 2016. (ECF No. 65.) 25 On March 11, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery. (ECF No. 68.) 26 Plaintiff’s opposition was entered on March 31, 2016. (ECF No. 69.) The time for 27 Defendants to reply to Plaintiff’s opposition has now expired, and the motion is deemed 28 submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 1 1 Defendants move for a protective order staying discovery pending the outcome of 2 the upcoming May 4, 2016 settlement conference. They argue that it is unduly 3 burdensome for them to be required to respond to Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery 4 requests at this juncture, as it will be wasteful of time and resources that could be better 5 used on the settlement negotiations. They further argue that the discovery will be 6 worthless if the case is resolved by the conference, and that there is no harm to Plaintiff 7 by a short delay in commencing discovery to allow for settlement negotiations. Plaintiff 8 opposes the motion, arguing that the stay will adversely affect the prospects of 9 settlement, that discovery will serve as a “reality check” to Defendants, and that 10 Defendants will not suffer harm from being required to respond. (ECF No. 69.) Plaintiff 11 notes that Defendants have not yet served any written discovery, but he has served forty 12 (40) requests for production. (Id. at 1-2.) 13 The Court finds good cause for a brief stay of discovery under these 14 circumstances. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The parties’ time and resources are better spent on 15 the settlement negotiations at this time, rather than causing Defendants to expend 16 resources on discovery which may not ultimately be required if the matter is resolved 17 through settlement. 18 Furthermore, Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by this brief stay. Plaintiff argues that 19 discovery is necessary to show Defendants the weaknesses in their case, but he has not 20 provided his requests for production for the Court’s review, or otherwise shown why the 21 outstanding discovery requests are necessary to prepare for the settlement negotiations 22 here. Moreover, Plaintiff articulated several reasons in his opposition brief why he 23 believes Defendants’ case is weak, based on evidence and information already in his 24 possession as well as legal arguments. (ECF No. 69, pp. 2-3.) The Court finds that the 25 settlement negotiations will not be negatively affected by a stay relieving Defendants 26 from the duty to respond to Plaintiff’s requests for production until after the settlement 27 conference. Plaintiff has also admitted that he agreed to an early initial conference in this 28 matter. (Id. at 4.) One of the benefits of the early timing of these negotiations is to lessen 2 1 the burdens on the parties of using their time and resources prosecuting and defending 2 this matter, if a settlement can be accomplished instead. 3 For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. Defendants’ motion to stay discovery, (ECF No. 68), is GRANTED; 5 2. Discovery in this matter is stayed pending the outcome of the May 4, 2016 6 7 settlement conference; and, 3. In the event that the case is not resolved at the settlement conference, the 8 Court will issue an order lifting the stay of discovery, and Defendants will be required to 9 respond to Plaintiff’s requests for production on or before thirty (30) days from the date 10 of service of that order. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara April 8, 2016 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 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?