Moore v. Gipson et al

Filing 50

ORDER Regarding Joint Statement Regarding Meet-and-Confer Conference and ORDER GRANTING Stay of Briefing on Defendants' Motion to Compel and Directing Parties to File Joint Status Report Within Thirty (30) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/12/2017. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MERRICK JOSE MOORE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 v. GIPSON, et al, Defendants. Case No. 1:13-cv-01820-DAD-BAM (PC) ORDER REGARDING JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING MEET-AND-CONFER CONFERENCE ORDER GRANTING STAY OF BRIEFING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AND DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE JOINT STATUS REPORT THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE Plaintiff Merrick Jose Moore (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 8, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to compel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 21 Procedure 37(a)(3)(B). (ECF No. 43.) On October 3, 2017, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s 22 second motion for extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion to compel. (ECF 23 No. 47.) On October 5, 2017, the Court issued an order directing the parties to meet and confer 24 regarding their discovery dispute, and to file a joint statement following the parties’ conference. 25 The Court further stayed further briefing on Defendants’ motion to compel. (ECF No. 48.) 26 Currently before the Court is the parties’ Joint Statement Regarding Meet-and-Confer 27 Conference. (ECF No. 49.) The parties indicate that they were unable to resolve the outstanding 28 issues from Defendants’ motion to compel, because Plaintiff’s legal property is currently 1 1 misplaced due to Plaintiff’s multiple prison transfers. The parties provided no timeline for when 2 Plaintiff will obtain his legal property, allowing him to determine whether he can provide 3 supplemental responses to Defendants’ discovery requests. The parties therefore request that the 4 briefing schedule for Defendants’ motion to compel remain stayed until such time that Plaintiff 5 has informed the Court that he has obtained his legal property. (Id.) 6 A district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 7 control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. N. Amer. 8 Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). The party seeking the stay bears the burden of establishing the 9 need to stay the action. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708. 10 In this case, the Court finds that the parties have adequately established the need to stay 11 briefing on Defendants’ motion to compel, to allow Plaintiff to obtain his legal property. Given 12 the possibility that Plaintiff will provide supplemental responses to Defendants’ discovery 13 requests, a stay of this motion will preserve judicial and party resources, and may avoid 14 unnecessary briefing. The Court further finds that it will be beneficial to receive a joint status 15 report from the parties. The parties shall address what efforts have been made to locate and 16 return Plaintiff’s legal property, and what items, if any, are missing and necessary for Plaintiff to 17 respond to Defendants’ discovery requests. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 19 1. Briefing on Defendants’ motion to compel (ECF No. 43) is stayed until further order 20 21 of the Court; 2. Within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order, a Joint Status Report shall 22 be filed in this matter, as set forth above. 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara October 12, 2017 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 2

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?