Lopez v. North Kern State Prison et al

Filing 33

ORDER Granting Defendant's 24 Motion for Protective Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 6/21/18. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RODRIGO LOPEZ,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:16-cv-00881-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.
(ECF No. 24)
NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Rodrigo Lopez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on

19

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendant McDermott (“Defendant”) for the failure to

20

intervene while Inmate Cancel was attacking Plaintiff, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

21

On April 2, 2018, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that

22

Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 23.) On the same date,

23

Defendant filed a motion for protective order, seeking a stay of all non-exhaustion-related

24

discovery pending resolution of the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff filed

25

an opposition to both motions on June 14, 2018. (ECF No. 31.) Defendant filed a reply on June

26

20, 2018. (ECF No. 32.)

27
28

The district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to
control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North
1

1

American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). The party seeking the stay bears the burden of

2

establishing the need to stay the action. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708.

3

Defendant argues that a stay of all discovery, except that pertaining to the subject of

4

exhaustion, will enable the parties to preserve their limited interrogatories for those claims which

5

might survive the motion for summary judgment. In addition, requiring Defendant to respond to

6

discovery requests would be unduly burdensome and a waste of scarce state resources. Plaintiff

7

generally argues in opposition that he believes he successfully exhausted his administrative

8

remedies, and the motion for protective order should be denied. Plaintiff further requests that the

9

Court reschedule a settlement conference in this matter.

10

The Court finds that Defendant has met the burden of showing good cause to stay all non-

11

exhaustion related discovery. Proceeding with discovery that is not related to the potentially

12

dispositive motion will result in unnecessary motion practice, litigation costs, and a waste of

13

judicial resources. If Defendant’s motion does not resolve this case, Plaintiff will not be

14

prejudiced by a modest delay in proceeding with non-exhaustion related discovery, as the current

15

discovery deadline is six months away under the current scheduling order. (ECF No. 25.)

16

With respect to Plaintiff’s request that the Court reschedule a settlement conference, the

17

Court declines to do so at this time. Defendant recently requested to opt-out of the Court’s post-

18

screening Alternative Dispute Resolution project, and has not expressed any interest since that

19

time in pursuing a settlement. No settlement conference will be scheduled until such time as both

20

parties indicate their willingness to participate.

21

For these reasons, Defendant’s motion to stay all non-exhaustion related discovery

22

pending the disposition of the pending motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 24), is HEREBY

23

GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

June 21, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2