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)

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