Brown v. Gipson et al
Filing
74
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 62 Defendant's Motion for Protective Order signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/6/2018. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
WILLIAM BROWN,
10
Plaintiff,
11
12
v.
W. RASLEY,
13
Case No. 1:13-cv-02084-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
(ECF No. 62)
Defendant.
14
15
16
I.
Plaintiff William Brown is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
17
18
Background
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On December 28, 2017, Defendant Rasley filed a motion for summary judgment under
19
20
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 for the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No.
21
61.)
22
On January 8, 2018, Defendant filed a motion for a protective order to stay discovery, or
23
in the alternative, to limit discovery to matters pertinent to issues of exhaustion of administrative
24
remedies and government claim presentation, until Defendant’s summary judgment motion is
25
resolved. (ECF No. 62.) Defendant also filed a declaration in support. (ECF No. 62-2) Defendant
26
declares that he contacted Plaintiff to discuss a stipulation, and Plaintiff declined to agree to any
27
protective order. Defendant further declares that Plaintiff served interrogatories and requests for
28
production on Defendant Rasley on or about December 8, 2017. (Id.)
1
1
On February 5, 2018, Plaintiff submitted objections to, among other things, the motion for
2
a protective order. (ECF No. 66.) The Court finds a reply unnecessary, and the motion is deemed
3
submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
4
II.
5
Motion for Protective Order
In support of the motion for protective order, Defendant argues that: (1) the pending
6
motion for summary judgment will potentially dispose of the entire action; (2) the Court does not
7
require additional information to decide the motion; and (3) the expenditure of resources required
8
to respond to discovery requests will be needless if the Court grants Defendants’ motion for
9
summary judgment, and if the motion is denied, the parties may conduct merits discovery with no
10
prejudice from the brief delay. Defendant further argues that additional discovery is not
11
necessary here because the motion for summary judgment includes the relevant information and
12
documents available to Defendant about Plaintiff’s appeal history and efforts to exhaust his claim
13
in this case. Further, Plaintiff has either possession of, or equal access to, his own documents
14
related to his appeal history and so will not need additional discovery on the exhaustion issue.
15
The district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to
16
control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North
17
American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). The party seeking the stay bears the burden of
18
establishing the need to stay the action. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708.
19
Here, the Court finds that Defendants have met the burden of showing good cause to stay
20
all non-exhaustion related discovery in this case. As Defendants argue, proceeding with
21
discovery that is not related to their potentially dispositive motion will result in unnecessary
22
motion practice, litigation costs, and a waste of judicial resources. If Defendants’ motion does
23
not resolve this case, Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by a modest delay in proceeding with non-
24
exhaustion related discovery.
25
Further, Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion is based on his desire to have Defendant
26
respond to his merits-related discovery concerning the injuries he alleges in this case. The Court
27
does not find Plaintiff’s opposition to be persuasive regarding whether a protective order should
28
be issued here.
2
1
However, the Court finds it appropriate to permit discovery on matters pertinent to issues
2
of exhaustion of administrative remedies and government claim presentation here. Although
3
documentary evidence and affidavits were provided in support of Defendant’s motion for
4
summary judgment, Plaintiff may require additional information prompted by the motion or
5
evidence which is not currently in his possession. The Court will not preclude discovery requests
6
which is solely related to exhaustion matters or government claim presentation issues at this time.
Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff’s interrogatories and request for production served on
7
8
Defendant on or about December 8, 2017 relate to matters of exhaustion of administrative
9
remedies or government claim presentation issues, Defendant shall respond to them. Otherwise,
10
such discovery is stayed pending the outcome of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
11
III.
Conclusion and Order
12
For these reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
13
1.
14
15
Defendant’s motion for protective order, filed on January 8, 2018 (ECF No. 62), is
granted in part;
2.
All discovery, other than on matters pertinent to issues of exhaustion of
16
administrative remedies and government claim presentation, is stayed in this case pending the
17
disposition of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment; and
18
3.
Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and request for production
19
served on or about December 8, 2017 only to the extent such requests are related to matters of
20
exhaustion of administrative remedies or government claim presentation issues. Defendant’s
21
responses, if any are required, are due on or before thirty (30) days from the date of this order.
22
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
February 6, 2018
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?