Dickson v. Gomez et al

Filing 45

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 38 Motion for Protective Order; ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 42 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; Thirty (30) Day Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/8/2020. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER DICKSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

G. GOMEZ, et al.

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00294-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
(ECF No. 38)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 42)
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Christopher Dickson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

20

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

21

I.

22

Introduction
This action currently proceeds on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint for excessive force

23

against Defendants Gomez, Rios, and Martinez, for violations of Plaintiff’s due process rights against

24

Defendants Duncan and Esparza, and for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against

25

Defendant Sao. (ECF No. 23.)

26
27
28

On September 10, 2019, Defendants Duncan, Esparza, Gomez, Martinez, Rios, and Sao filed
an answer to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. (ECF No. 32.)
On October 10, 2019, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 36.)
1

On December 3, 2019, Defendants Duncan, Esparza, Gomez, Martinez, Rios, and Sao filed a

1
2

motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 37.)

3

Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ summary judgment motion was due on or before December 27,

4

2019.

5

Also, on December 3, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for a protective order to stay all

6

currently propounded and future discovery in this matter until the Court decides Defendants’ motion

7

for summary judgment. (ECF No. 38.) On December 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed his opposition to

8

Defendants’ motion for protective order. (ECF No. 43.) No reply has been filed, and the time in

9

which to do so has lapsed.
On December 23, 2019, Plaintiff also filed a motion for an extension of time to file a response

10
11

to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 42.) On January 2, 2020, Defendants filed

12

an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time. (ECF No. 44.) Although Plaintiff has not

13

had an opportunity to file a reply, the Court finds that a reply is unnecessary.
Therefore, both Defendants’ motion for protective order and Plaintiff’s motion for an extension

14
15

of time to file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment are deemed submitted. Local

16

Rule 230(l).

17

II.

18

Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order
The Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery. Dichter-Mad Family Partners,

19

LLP v. U.S., 709 F.3d 749, 751 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam); Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606,

20

616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005);

21

Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

22

26(c)(1), the Court may, for good cause, issue a protective order forbidding or limiting discovery. The

23

avoidance of undue burden or expense is grounds for the issuance of a protective order, Fed. R. Civ. P.

24

26(c), and a stay of discovery pending resolution of potentially dispositive issues furthers the goal of

25

efficiency for the courts and the litigants, Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)

26

(stay of discovery pending resolution of immunity issue). The propriety of delaying discovery on the

27

merits of the plaintiff’s claims pending resolution of an exhaustion-based summary judgment motion

28

was explicitly recognized by the Ninth Circuit. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170-71 (9th Cir.
2

1

2014) (en banc); see also Gibbs v. Carson, No. C-13-0860 THE (PR), 2014 WL 172187, at *2-3 (N.D.

2

Cal. Jan. 15, 2014).

3

Here, Defendants move for a protective order staying all discovery in this matter, including

4

discovery that has already been propounded, until the Court rules on Defendants’ pending motion for

5

summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 38.)

6

The failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit is an affirmative defense, and

7

Defendants are entitled to judgment on Plaintiff’s claims against them if the Court determines that

8

Plaintiff’s claims were unexhausted when Plaintiff filed suit. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166. Thus,

9

Defendants’ pending exhaustion-based summary judgment motion has the potential to bring final

10

resolution to this action, obviating the need for merits-based discovery. Gibbs, 2014 WL 172187, at

11

*3. In Albino, the Ninth Circuit recognized that “[e]xhaustion should be decided, if feasible, before

12

reaching the merits of a prisoner’s claims,” and “discovery directed to the merits of the suit” should be

13

left until later. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1170. To the extent that Plaintiff needs specific discovery to

14

address the issues raised in Defendants’ exhaustion-based summary judgment motion, then Plaintiff is

15

entitled to obtain exhaustion-related discovery before having to file a response to Defendants’

16

summary judgment motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d); Albino, 747 F.3d at 1170-71; Wyatt v. Terhune,

17

315 F.3d 1108, 1115 n.7 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds by Albino, 747 F.3d at 1168-69.

18

Indeed, in his opposition, Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ motion for protective order

19

should be denied because he propounded discovery requests on November 4, 2019 in order to be able

20

to defend his claims and complaint against summary judgment and he has not been provided with

21

responses to that propounded discovery. (ECF No. 43.) The Court has reviewed the copies of the

22

discovery requests that Plaintiff propounded on Defendants and provided to the Court as Exhibit A to

23

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a response to Defendants’ summary judgment

24

motion. (ECF No. 42, Ex. A.) However, after reviewing Plaintiff’s propounded discovery requests,

25

the Court finds that Plaintiff’s propounded discovery requests seek merits-based discovery, not

26

exhaustion-related discovery. Therefore, since Defendants’ summary judgment motion is directed

27

solely to the issue of exhaustion and does not challenge the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, Plaintiff’s

28

merits-based discovery is immaterial and irrelevant to the issue raised in Defendants’ summary
3

1

judgment motion. Plaintiff will not suffer any actual prejudice if he is required to file a response to

2

Defendants’ summary judgment motion before he receives any responses to his merit-based discovery

3

requests.

4

Additionally, proceeding with merits-based discovery regarding defendants and claims that

5

may be disposed of by the pending exhaustion-based summary judgment will result in unnecessary

6

motion practice, litigation costs, and a waste of judicial resources. If Defendants do not prevail on

7

their motion, in part or in total, Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by a modest delay in proceeding with

8

merits-based discovery.

9

Therefore, in the absence of any actual prejudice to Plaintiff and good cause having been

10

shown, Defendants’ motion for protective order, (ECF No. 38), is granted. All merits-based discovery

11

is stayed until the Court rules on Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment for failure to

12

exhaust administrative remedies.

13

III.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time

14

Plaintiff moves for an extension of time to file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary

15

judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff asserts that he needs

16

additional time to file a response to Defendants’ summary judgment motion because he has not yet

17

received Defendants’ responses to his propounded discovery requests, and he needs the discovery

18

responses in order to prepare his response. (Id.) On the other hand, Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s

19

motion for an extension of time that would allow Plaintiff to not file a response to their pending

20

motion for summary judgment until after Plaintiff receives Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s merits-

21

based discovery requests. (ECF No. 44.) Defendants do not oppose a reasonable extension of time for

22

Plaintiff to file a response to the pending summary judgment motion that is not based upon the receipt

23

of any discovery responses from Defendants. (Id. at 1-2.)

24

Having considered Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time, the Court finds that Plaintiff has

25

not presented good cause for the requested extension of time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). As discussed

26

above, since Defendants’ summary judgment motion is directed solely to the issue of exhaustion and

27

does not challenge the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, Plaintiff’s merits-based discovery is immaterial and

28

irrelevant to the issue raised in Defendants’ summary judgment motion. Therefore, Plaintiff does not
4

1

need to receive Defendants’ responses to the propounded merits-based discovery before Plaintiff can

2

file a response to the pending motion for summary judgment.
Nevertheless, in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and in order to allow Plaintiff time to receive

3
4

the Court’s order and file a response to Defendants’ exhaustion-based summary judgment motion, the

5

Court finds it appropriate to grant Plaintiff an extension of time. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for an

6

extension of time, (ECF No. 42), is granted. Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendants’ pending

7

motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies within thirty (30) days

8

after the service of this order.

9

IV.

Order

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1.

Defendants’ motion for protective order, (ECF No. 38), is GRANTED;

12

2.

All merits-based discovery is stayed until the Court rules on Defendants’ pending
motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies;

13
14

3.

summary judgment, (ECF No. 42), is GRANTED; and

15
16

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file response to Defendants’ motion for

4.

Plaintiff is directed to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment

17

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, (ECF No. 37), within thirty (30) days

18

from the date of service of this order.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

January 8, 2020

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
5