Martinez Castro v. Unnamed Defendants
Filing
61
ORDER GRANTING Defendant's 53 Motion to Stay; ORDER GRANTING Defendant's 56 Motion to Modify Discovery and Scheduling Order; The current deadlines for the completion of discovery and the filing of dispositive motions (other than a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust) set forth in the February 10, 2016 scheduling order in this matter are VACATED, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 03/23/2017. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GLENN S. MARTINEZ CASTRO,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
UNNAMED DEFENDANTS, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
I.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:14-cv-01326-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO STAY
(ECF No. 53)
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING
ORDER
(ECF No. 56.)
Introduction
Plaintiff Glenn S. Martinez Castro (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
20
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second
21
Amended Complaint against Defendant Correctional Officer Elias for excessive force in violation of
22
the Eighth Amendment.
23
Currently before the Court are (1) Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of
24
motion for summary judgment on issue of exhaustion, filed May 5, 2016 (ECF No. 53); and (2)
25
Defendant’s motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order, filed September 7, 2016 (ECF No.
26
56). Plaintiff filed no opposition to these motions within the time permitted. Local Rule 230(l). On
27
October 10, 2016 and October 12, 2016, Defendant filed a reply standing on each of the original
28
motions. (ECF No. 58, 60.) The motions are deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
1
1
II.
Defendant’s Motion to Stay and Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order
In Defendant’s motion to stay discovery, Defendant seeks a motion to stay discovery pending
2
3
the resolution of the motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion. (ECF No. 53.) Defense
4
counsel filed a declaration in support stating that they have received merits-based discovery from
5
Plaintiff that does not bear on the motion for summary judgment, and Defendant seeks an order
6
allowing them to delay their response to such discovery pending the outcome of their summary
7
judgment motion.
In Defendant’s motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order, Defendant requests that
8
9
10
the Court suspend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines until after a final ruling on
Defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion. (ECF No. 56.)
The district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to
11
12
control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American
13
Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). The party seeking the stay bears the burden of establishing the need to
14
stay the action. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708.
Here, the Court finds that Defendants have met the burden of showing good cause to stay all
15
16
non-exhaustion related discovery in this case, to modify the discovery and dispositive motion
17
deadlines in this matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). As Defendants argue, proceeding with discovery
18
that is not related to their potentially dispositive motion will result in unnecessary motion practice,
19
litigation costs, and a waste of judicial resources. Furthermore, concurrently with this order, the
20
undersigned shall issue findings and recommendations regarding Defendant’s motion for summary
21
judgment for the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. As a result, a final ruling on that matter is
22
imminent. If Defendants’ motion does not resolve this case, Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by a
23
modest delay in proceeding with non-exhaustion related discovery under the circumstances, and
24
deadlines may be set to ensure this matter proceeds to resolution in a speedy manner.
25
III.
Conclusion and Order
26
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
27
1.
28
Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of motion for summary
judgment on issue of exhaustion, filed May 5, 2016 (ECF No. 53), is GRANTED;
2
1
2
3
2.
Defendant’s motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order, filed September 7,
2016 (ECF No. 56), is GRANTED;
3.
The current deadlines for the completion of discovery and the filing of dispositive
4
motions (other than a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust) set forth in the February
5
10, 2016 scheduling order in this matter are VACATED; and
6
4.
In the event that the case is not resolved on the pending summary judgment motion, the
7
Court will issue an order lifting the stay of discovery and requiring Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s
8
written discovery requests within (45) days from the date of service of that order, and an amended
9
discovery and scheduling order setting forth the deadlines for the completion of discovery and filing
10
deadlines for any further dispositive motions.
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
March 23, 2017
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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?