Mundo v. Taylor, et al.

Filing 55

ORDER in Response to 54 Defendants' Request for Clarification signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/12/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JONATHAN WAYNE MUNDO,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

1:15-cv-01681-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
(ECF No. 54.)

A. TAYLOR, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

Jonathan W. Mundo (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

22

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed on November 5, 2015. This

23

case now proceeds with the Fifth Amended Complaint filed on June 15, 2016, against

24

defendants A. Taylor (Pleasant Valley State Prison Classification Staff Representative), F.

25

Salgado (Centinela State Prison (“CEN”) Correctional Counselor), Raybon (CEN Correctional

26

Counselor), and Arias (CEN Facility Captain). (ECF No. 32.)

27
28

On October 6, 2017, Defendants filed a request for clarification of the court’s Discovery
and Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 54.)
1

1

II.

2
3

On October 3, 2017, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order in this case.
(ECF No. 53.) Defendants request clarification of Section III.A. of the order, which provides:

4

All motions asserting failure to exhaust administrative remedies must be filed on
or before 01/03/18. The issue of exhaustion must be raised by either (1) a
procedurally proper motion for summary judgment, or (2) a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) if the failure to exhaust is
clear on the face of the complaint. If the parties believe that discovery related to
exhaustion is necessary, they may request discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56(d). Requests for limited discovery must be made within 30
calendar days of the date of service of any motion asserting failure to exhaust.
A party may also request that discovery, other than discovery related to
exhaustion, be stayed pending the resolution of an exhaustion motion.

5
6
7
8
9
10

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

(ECF No. 53 at 3:19-26 ¶III.A.)

11

Defendants question why the court’s order requires them to formally request permission

12

to engage in exhaustion-based discovery before propounding it. Defendants assert that Rule

13

56(d) provides the non-movant an opportunity to obtain discovery to oppose an already

14

pending summary-judgment motion, and does not require the moving party to seek leave of the

15

Court to engage in exhaustion-based discovery before filing a motion.

16

discovery is now open for all purposes in this case, Defendants believe they are permitted to

17

engage in discovery on all issues, including exhaustion, without specific leave from the court.

Considering that

18

Under Rule 56(d), the court may allow time to “obtain affidavits or declarations or to

19

take discovery” when a non-moving party cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition

20

to a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)(2). Analogously, Section III.A. of

21

the court’s Discovery and Scheduling order is meant to allow time for the non-movant to

22

conduct discovery for opposition to an exhaustion motion. The court’s order allows the parties

23

to request that discovery be limited only to exhaustion-based discovery pending resolution of

24

an exhaustion motion. This provision allows the parties to resolve the issue of exhaustion,

25

which may be dispositive to Plaintiff’s claims, without being required to propound or respond

26

to discovery requests concerning issues which may not be necessary to the resolution of the

27

case.

28

judgment has, as one of its most important goals, the elimination of waste of the time and

See Zweig v. Hearst Corp., 521 F.2d 1129, 1135–36 (9th Cir. 1975) (“Summary

2

1

resources of both litigants and the courts in cases where a trial would be a useless formality”);

2

see also Comm. of Russian Fed. on Precious Metals and Gems v. United States, 987 F.Supp.

3

1181, 1183 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (“The purpose of summary judgment or summary adjudication is

4

to avoid unnecessary trials when there is no dispute as to the facts before the court”); accord

5

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Glob. Eagle Entm't Inc., No. CV1403466MMMJPRX, 2015 WL

6

12778410, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2015).

7

Defendants are correct that at this stage of the proceedings, discovery is open for all

8

purposes in this case, and Defendants are permitted to engage in discovery on all issues,

9

including exhaustion, without specific leave from the court.

10
11
12

III.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this order HEREBY RESOLVES Defendants’ request for clarification

filed on October 6, 2017.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 12, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3