Hutchins, Jr. v. Lockyer, et al.

Filing 49

ORDER GRANTING Defendant's 42 Motion to Stay Discovery, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/10/18. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLIFTON HUTCHINS JR., Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 v. CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01537-DAD-MJS(PC) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY (ECF No. 42) BILL LOCKYER, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 20 rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s 21 medical indifference and retaliation claims against Defendant Johal. (ECF No. 39.) 22 Before the Court is the Defendant’s March 6, 2018 motion to stay merits-based 23 discovery, filed in conjunction with Defendant’s motion for summary judgment for failure 24 to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 42; see also ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff filed no 25 opposition and the time for doing so has passed. 26 Defendant requests that the Court stay all discovery in this matter, except that 27 pertaining to exhaustion, until the Court rules on Defendant’s motion for summary 28 1 1 judgment. 2 The Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery. Dichter-Mad 3 Family Partners, LLP v. U.S., 709 F.3d 749, 751 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam); Hunt v. 4 Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor 5 Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 6 2002). Pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1), the Court may, for good cause, issue a 7 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 9 stay of discovery pending resolution of potentially dispositive issues furthers the goal of 10 efficiency for the courts and the litigants. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th 11 Cir. 1988) (stay of discovery pending resolution of immunity issue). 12 The propriety of delaying discovery on the merits of the plaintiff's claims pending 13 resolution of an exhaustion motion was explicitly recognized by the Ninth Circuit. Albino 14 v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170–71 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 403 15 (2014); see also Gibbs v. Carson, No. C–13–0860 THE (PR), 2014 WL 172187, at *2–3 16 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2014). The failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, and 17 Defendant is entitled to move for judgment on the issue. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166. 18 The Court finds that judicial economy is best served by staying discovery until 19 after the Court rules on Defendants’ pending motion (ECF No. 41) for summary 20 judgment for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Plaintiff does not 21 oppose the stay. Accordingly, this motion is GRANTED. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: April 10, 2018 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 2

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?