Luster v. Amezcua et al

Filing 56

ORDER granting Defendant's Motion for Protective Order 39 ; denying Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order 50 ; staying Discovery, except for limited purpose described by this order pending resolution of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/27/2019. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAPHNYE S. LUSTER,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
RAUL H. AMEZCUA, et al.,
Defendants.

16

1:16-cv-00554-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
(ECF No. 39.)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
(ECF No. 50.)
ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY,
EXCEPT FOR LIMITED PURPOSE
DESCRIBED BY THIS ORDER
PENDING RESOLUTION OF
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

17
18
19
20
21
22

Daphnye S. Luster (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

23

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

24

commencing this action on April 4, 2016, at the United States District Court for the Northern

25

District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On April 18, 2016, the case was transferred to this court.

26

(ECF No. 5.)

27

This case now proceeds with the Second Amended Complaint filed on June 11, 2018,

28

against defendant Raul H. Amezcua (“Defendant”) for retaliation under the First Amendment.
1

1

(ECF No. 24.)1 On January 23, 2019, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order, which

2

opened the discovery phase for this case. (ECF No. 40.)

3

On January 17, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for a protective order. (ECF No. 39.) On

4

February 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion and brought a cross-

5

motion for a protective order. (ECF No. 50.) Defendant has not replied to Plaintiff’s opposition,

6

nor opposed Plaintiff’s cross-motion, and the time for such responses has expired. The parties’

7

motions for protective order are before the court. Local Rule 230(l).

8

II.

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER – RULE 26(c)

9

Rule 26(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, “A party or any person

10

from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is

11

pending. . . The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from

12

annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P.

13

26(c)(1). The court has inherent authority to manage the cases before it. Landis v. N. Am. Co.,

14

299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power

15

inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of

16

time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the

17

exercise of judgment which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance”);

18

Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007).

19

Stays of proceedings in federal court, including stays of discovery, are committed to the

20

discretion of the trial court. See, e.g., Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987).

21

Defendant’s Motion

22

Defendant moves for a protective order staying all discovery in this action, except for

23

discovery related to the Heck bar,2 until after the court rules on Defendant’s motion for summary

24

judgment and resolves all Heck bar issues. Defendant argues that until the court rules on the

25
26

1

On September 24, 2018, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants
from this case for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 28.)

27
Defendant seeks summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint
is barred under the favorable termination doctrine in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994).
2

28

2

1

motion for summary judgment he is unable to confirm which claims, if any, will proceed in this

2

case and therefore, is unable to determine the permissible scope of discovery or what further

3

motions may be necessary. Defendant also argues that without such a protective order he could

4

be required to respond to excessive discovery requests that will ultimately prove moot. In

5

addition, Defendant argues that if the stay is not granted it will be an undue burden on Defendant

6

and a waste of scarce state resources. Defendant contends that a stay would not unfairly prejudice

7

Plaintiff. Defendant also requests the court to waive any meet-and-confer requirements to the

8

extent they apply to Defendant’s motion for a protective order.

9

In the alternative, should the court deny Defendant’s motion for a protective order, and

10

should Plaintiff serve any merits-based discovery during the pendency of the motion for summary

11

judgment, Defendant requests forty-five days from the date of any order to respond to Plaintiff’s

12

discovery requests.

13

Plaintiff’s Position

14

Plaintiff brings a cross-motion for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil

15

Procedure 26(c), requesting a stay of all discovery, including that pertaining to the Heck bar.

16

Because Defendant is a CDCR employee, Plaintiff argues that Defendant is a threat due to

17

Defendant’s access to CDCR records which allows Defendant to retaliate and create false claims

18

against Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that a protective order against Defendant would cause

19

Defendant to be accountable for his conduct and respond to all discovery. Plaintiff opposes

20

Defendant’s request for the court to waive the meet-and-confer requirements during the stay.

21

Discussion

22

Based on Defendant’s arguments and a review of Defendant=s pending motion for

23

summary judgment, the court finds good cause to grant Defendant’s motion for a protective order.

24

See Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 801-02 (9th Cir. 1981). The court finds no prejudice to

25

any of the parties and in fact, resolution of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment may cause

26

discovery to be unnecessary. The court does not anticipate a lengthy stay pending resolution of

27

the motion for summary judgment.

28

///
3

1

The court finds Plaintiff’s arguments to be unpersuasive. Plaintiff offers no argument in

2

support of her request to stay all discovery, nor in support of her opposition to a waiver of the

3

meet-and-confer requirement during the discovery stay. Plaintiff presents no plausible evidence

4

supporting her argument that the protective order requested by Plaintiff would cause Defendant

5

to be held accountable and respond to all discovery.

6

Therefore, based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for a protective order shall be

7

granted and Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order shall be denied. Discovery shall be stayed

8

for all parties, except for discovery related to the Heck bar, until after the court rules on

9

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and resolves all Heck bar issues. If the parties have

10

previously been served with discovery requests that do not relate to the Heck bar, they shall retain

11

the discovery for later consideration after the stay has been lifted. In addition, until the motion

12

for summary judgment is resolved, the parties are not required to exchange written

13

correspondence in an attempt to resolve discovery issues.3

14

III.

CONCLUSION

15

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

16

1.

17

Defendant=s motion for a protective order, filed on January 17, 2019, is
GRANTED, as discussed in this order;

18

2.

Plaintiff’s request for a protective order, filed on February 21, 2019, is DENIED;

19

3.

Discovery in this action, which commenced on January 23, 2019, is STAYED,
except for discovery related to the Heck bar, pending the court’s resolution of the

20
21

///

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

As set forth in the court’s Discovery/Scheduling Order issued on January 23, 2019:

“Local Rule 251 and the requirements set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26
and 37− that a party certify he/she has conferred in good faith or attempted to confer with
the opponent in an effort to resolve [a discovery] dispute prior to seeking court action −
shall not apply. Nevertheless, voluntary compliance with this provision of Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 26 and 37 is encouraged. At a minimum, the parties shall exchange
written correspondence in an attempt to resolve the issues.” (ECF No. 40 at 2:18-20.)
By the issuance of this order, the parties are not required to exchange written correspondence in
an attempt to resolve discovery issues during the stay.
4

1

motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant on January 17, 2019, and

2

resolution of all Heck bar issues;

3

4.

4
5

During the stay, the parties are not required to exchange written correspondence
in an attempt to resolve discovery issues;

5.

6

Following the resolution of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the Court
shall issue a new scheduling order if needed.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 27, 2019

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5