Vaughn v. Teran

Filing 120

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 106 PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR STAY OF MOTION AND DISCOVERY, signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 1/10/2024. (Apodaca, P)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARK A. VAUGHN,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
NURSE DURAN and TERAN,

Case No. 1:17-cv-00966-HBK (PC)
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR STAY OF
MOTION AND DISCOVERY
(Doc. No. 106)

Defendants.

16
17

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Stay of Motion and

18

Discovery, filed on July 14, 2023. (Doc. No. 106, “Ex Parte Motion”). In the Ex Parte Motion,

19

Plaintiff’s counsel requests the Court to stay all deadlines pertaining to his Motion to Enforce the

20

Settlement Agreement (Doc. No. 99, “Motion to Enforce”). He asserts that the California

21

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) has not produced all relevant records in

22

response to his California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request, (Doc. No. 106 at 2) and needs

23

additional “time to bring a CPRA enforcement action and conduct formal discovery” so that the

24

Court can decide the dispute on a complete record. (Id.).

25

On December 7, 2023, the Court held a telephonic status conference regarding these

26

issues. (Doc. No. 115). On December 15, 2023, the Court issued an Order directing the parties to

27

submit supplemental briefing by January 30, 2024, including any evidence relevant to interpreting

28

the parties’ Settlement Agreement, so that the Court can rule on the Motion to Enforce. (Doc.

1

No. 116). On December 19, 2023, the Court held an informal discovery conference to discuss the

2

discovery issues raised in Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce. (Doc. Nos. 117, 119). At the hearing,

3

the Court advised Plaintiff to direct any discovery requests to Defense Counsel, in addition to a

4

CPRA request, and afforded the parties additional time to attempt to resolve the matter. Thus, the

5

Court has afforded Plaintiff additional time to engage in discovery, and invited additional briefing

6

on the Motion to Enforce, making the requests in the Ex Parte Motion moot.

7

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

8

Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Stay of Motion and Discovery (Doc. No. 106) is

9

DENIED as moot.

10
11
12

Dated:

January 10, 2024
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2