Baker v. Beam et al

Filing 66

ORDER GRANTING 65 Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/22/2020. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MIKE BAKER,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:16-cv-01737-AWI-BAM (PC)
Plaintiff,

v.
BEAM, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND
DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES
(ECF No. 65)

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Mike Baker (“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 second amended complaint against: (1) Defendants Vogel, Caldwell, and Cervantes for

20

deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (2) Defendants Vasquez, Vogel,

21

Beam, Cuevas, Caldwell, Cervantes, Huerta, Benevidas, Goree, Cribbs, Diaz, Jarvis, and Pacillas

22

for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; (3) Defendants Vasquez, Vogel, Beam,

23

Cuevas, Caldwell, Cervantes, Huerta, and Benevidas for conspiracy; (4) Defendants Vogel,

24

Beam, Cuevas, Caldwell, Cervantes, Huerta, and Benevidas for denial of access to the courts in

25

violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments; (5) Defendants Vogel, Beam, Cuevas,

26

Caldwell, Cervantes, Huerta, and Benevidas for a state law claim for property deprivation;

27

(6) Defendants Beam, Huerta, and Benevidas for violation of California Civil Code § 52.1;

28

(7) Defendant Vogel for a state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress; and
1

1

(8) Defendants Vogel, Caldwell, and Cervantes for a state law claim for negligent infliction of

2

emotional distress.

3

On February 13, 2020, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground

4

that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to any claims against any Defendant,

5

and a motion for protective order. (ECF Nos. 52, 53.) Despite being granted several extensions

6

of time, Plaintiff has not yet filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

7

Defendants’ motion for protective order also remains pending before the Court.

8

On July 21, 2020, Defendants filed a motion for a stay of the discovery and dispositive

9

motion deadlines pending resolution of their exhaustion motion for summary judgment. (ECF

10

No. 65.) Pursuant to the Court’s November 21, 2019 Discovery and Scheduling Order, the

11

deadline for the completion of all discovery is July 21, 2020, and the deadline for filing all

12

dispositive motions is October 1, 2020. (ECF No. 48.)
Although Plaintiff has not had the opportunity to file a response to Defendants’ motion,

13
14

the Court finds a response unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

15

Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and

16

with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily

17

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

18

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot

19

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was

20

not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id.

21

In their motion, Defendants argue that the pending motion for summary judgment for

22

failure to exhaust administrative remedies may dispose of this case summarily and without the

23

need to take Plaintiff’s deposition. (ECF No. 65-1.) Defendants further argue that due to the

24

ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and CDCR’s restrictions on inmate movement and limited

25

videoconferencing equipment, defense counsel cannot reasonably conduct Plaintiff’s deposition

26

at this time. Defendants therefore request that the Court stay the discovery and dispositive

27

motion deadlines until the motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion is resolved.

28

(Id.)
2

1

Having considered Defendants’ moving papers, the Court finds good cause to stay the

2

discovery and dispositive motion deadlines in this action. Defendants have been diligent in filing

3

the dispositive motion, and it would be a waste of the resources of the Court and the parties to

4

require the taking of Plaintiff’s deposition or the filing of unnecessary dispositive motions,

5

particularly with the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiff will not be

6

prejudiced by the relief requested, as the Court will reset the applicable deadlines, if necessary,

7

following a ruling on the pending motion.

8
9
10

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendants’ motion to stay the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines, (ECF No. 65),
is GRANTED;

11

2. The discovery and dispositive motion deadlines are STAYED; and

12

3. As necessary and appropriate, the Court will reset the deadlines following resolution of

13

the pending motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

July 22, 2020

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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