Boyd v. Etchebehere et al
Filing
23
ORDER GRANTING Defendant's 22 Request to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/8/2015. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CURTIS BOYD,
v.
C. ETCHEBEHERE,
15
Defendant.
16
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST
TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION
OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[ECF No. 22]
Plaintiff Curtis Boyd is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
17
18
Case No.: 1:13-01966-LJO-SAB (PC)
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19
I.
20
RELEVANT HISTORY
This action is proceeding is against Defendant Etchebehere for violation of his First
21
22
Amendment right to free exercise of religion.
On November 25, 2014, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based on lack of
23
24
exhaustion of administrative remedies.
On November 26, 2014, Defendant filed a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the
25
26
motion relating to exhaustion. (ECF No. 22.)
Plaintiff did not file an opposition.
27
28
///
1
1
II.
2
LEGAL STANDARD
3
The Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery. Dichter-Mad Family Partners,
4
LLP v. U.S., 709 F.3d 749, 751 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 117 (2013); Hunt,
5
672 F.3d at 616; Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett
6
v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1), the Court may, for good
7
cause, issue a protective order forbidding or limiting discovery. The avoidance of undue burden or
8
expense is grounds for the issuance of a protective order, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), and a stay of discovery
9
pending resolution of potentially dispositive issues furthers the goal of efficiency for the courts and the
10
litigants, Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988) (stay of discovery pending
11
resolution of immunity issue). The propriety of delaying discovery on the merits of the plaintiff’s
12
claims pending resolution of an exhaustion motion was explicitly recognized by the Ninth Circuit.
13
Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 403 (2014);
14
see also Gibbs v. Carson, No. C-13-0860 THE (PR), 2014 WL 172187, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15,
15
2014).
16
III.
17
DISCUSSION
18
Pursuant to the Court’s standard practice in civil rights cases such as this, the discovery phase
19
opens via the issuance of a discovery and scheduling order, and the discovery period is eight months
20
long, with the potential for extension upon a timely showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). In
21
this case, the discovery phase commenced on September 18, 2014, with the issuance of the discovery
22
and scheduling order, and the discovery deadline was set for May 18, 2015.
23
Defendant moved for a stay of discovery pending resolution of his exhaustion motion.
24
The failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, and Defendants are entitled to judgment on
25
unexhausted claims. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166. Thus, the pending exhaustion motion has the potential
26
to bring final resolution to some or all of Plaintiff’s claims in this action, which would obviate the
27
need for discovery as to those claims. Gibbs, 2014 WL 172187, at *3. In Albino, the Ninth Circuit
28
recognized that “[e]xhaustion should be decided, if feasible, before reaching the merits of a prisoner’s
2
1
claims,” and “discovery directed to the merits of the suit” should be left until later. Albino, 747 F.3d
2
at 1170.
The Court finds good cause to grant Defendant’s motion to stay discovery.
3
As stated,
4
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is based on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his
5
administrative remedies for the claim at issue in this case. Resolution of Defendant’s motion for
6
summary judgment may cause discovery to be unnecessary. Plaintiff has not opposed a stay of
7
discovery, and the Court does not anticipate a lengthy stay pending resolution of the motion for
8
summary judgment. Therefore, Defendant’s motion to stay discovery shall be granted. Except for
9
discovery related to whether Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies, the parties are
10
precluded from responding to any discovery requests or serving any discovery requests until the stay is
11
lifted.
12
exhaustion of administrative remedies, they shall retain the discovery for later consideration, if and
13
until the stay has been lifted.
If the parties have been served with discovery requests that do not relate to Plaintiff’s
14
IV.
15
ORDER
16
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:
17
1.
Defendants’ motion to stay discovery, filed on November 26, 2014, is GRANTED;
18
2.
Discovery in this action, which commenced on September 18, 2014, is stayed pending
19
resolution of Defendant’s exhaustion motion; and
20
3.
21
issue a new scheduling order if necessary.
Following the resolution of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the Court shall
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
Dated:
25
January 8, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?