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