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)

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