Bullard v. St. Andra et al

Filing 29

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 24 Motion for Protective Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 03/20/2018. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EFREN DANIELLE BULLARD,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.

CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00328-LJO-MJS(PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
(ECF No. 24)

R. ST. ANDRA, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

20

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Eighth

21

Amendment claims against CO Jane Doe and CO Benson; a conspiracy claim against

22

CO Jane Doe and CO Benson; and a First Amendment retaliation claim against CO

23

Davis. (ECF No. 10.)

24

Before the Court is the Defendants’ February 16, 2018, motion for a protective

25

order, filed in conjunction with Defendants’ motion for summary judgment for failure to

26

exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 24; see also ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff filed a

27

statement of non-opposition. (ECF No. 27.)

28
1

1

The Defendants request that the Court stay all discovery in this matter, except

2

that pertaining to exhaustion, until the Court rules on Defendants’ motion for summary

3

judgment.

4

The Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery. Dichter-Mad

5

Family Partners, LLP v. U.S., 709 F.3d 749, 751 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam); Hunt v.

6

Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor

7

Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.

8

2002). Pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1), the Court may, for good cause, issue a

9

protective order forbidding or limiting discovery. The avoidance of undue burden or

10

expense is grounds for the issuance of a protective order, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), and a

11

stay of discovery pending resolution of potentially dispositive issues furthers the goal of

12

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

13

Cir. 1988) (stay of discovery pending resolution of immunity issue).

14

The propriety of delaying discovery on the merits of the plaintiff's claims pending

15

resolution of an exhaustion motion was explicitly recognized by the Ninth Circuit. Albino

16

v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170–71 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 403

17

(2014); see also Gibbs v. Carson, No. C–13–0860 THE (PR), 2014 WL 172187, at *2–3

18

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2014). The failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, and

19

Defendant is entitled to move for judgment on the issue. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166.

20

The Court finds that judicial economy is best served by staying discovery until

21

after the Court rules on Defendants’ pending motion (ECF No. 23) for summary

22

judgment for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Plaintiff does not

23

oppose the stay. Accordingly, this motion is GRANTED.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated:

March 20, 2018

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3