Smith v. Knowlton

Filing 54

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 45 Defendant's Motion for Protective Order and ORDER GRANTING 53 Defendant's Motion to Modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order Nunc Pro Tunc signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/20/2020. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
KNOWLTON,

15

Defendant.

16
17

Case No. 1:18-cv-00851-NONE-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
(ECF No. 45)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY
AND SCHEDULING ORDER NUNC PRO
TUNC
(ECF No. 53)

Plaintiff Lawrence Christopher Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se

18
19

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

20

proceeds against Defendant Knowlton for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on August 5, 2019. (ECF No. 33.)

21
22

Pursuant to that order, the deadline for completion of all discovery was set for April 5, 2020, and

23

the deadline for filing dispositive motions is June 15, 2020. (Id.)
On August 23, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that

24
25

Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 37.) Following an extension of

26

time, Plaintiff filed his opposition on October 24, 2019, (ECF No. 43), and Defendant filed a

27

reply on October 31, 2019, (ECF No. 44). That motion is pending.

28

///
1

1

On December 16, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for protective order seeking relief from

2

the obligation to respond to Plaintiff’s November 20, 2019 discovery requests until forty-five

3

days following the Court’s ruling on the pending motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 45.)

4

Defendant argues that the pending summary judgment motion, if granted, will be dispositive of

5

this action, and the motion can be decided without additional discovery. Defendant states that

6

responses to Plaintiff’s request for exhaustion-related discovery have already been provided. (Id.)

7

Plaintiff filed his opposition on January 15, 2020. (ECF No. 47.) Plaintiff argues that the motion

8

for protective order should be denied by referencing various other civil actions he has filed, and

9

because his claim in this action is meritorious. (Id.) Defendant filed a reply on January 23, 2020,

10

and argues that Plaintiff does not contend that additional discovery will be required for the Court

11

to rule on the pending exhaustion-based summary judgment motion, and the validity of Plaintiff’s

12

claims alleged against prison officials in other lawsuits are not connected to the litigation of this

13

case. (ECF No. 49)

14

On April 17, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order

15

to reset the discovery deadline and the deadline for filing a dispositive motion for summary

16

judgment. (ECF No. 53.) Defendant argues that the pending motion is dispositive of Plaintiff’s

17

excessive force claim in this action, and therefore Defendant has abstained from taking Plaintiff’s

18

deposition or engaging in any other discovery on the merits of Plaintiff’s claim, because it may be

19

unnecessary if the Court grants the pending summary judgment motion. Defendant argues that

20

the request will not prejudice Plaintiff because he will also receive additional time to engage in

21

discovery if this action proceeds to the merits of his claim. Although the discovery deadline

22

expired on April 6, 2020, Defendant states that it was an oversight that counsel did not file a

23

motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order prior to the expiration of that deadline.

24

(Id.) Although Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to respond to Defendant’s motion, the Court

25

finds a response unnecessary.
Defendant’s motion for protective order and motion to modify the Discovery and

26
27

Scheduling Order nunc pro tunc are deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

28

///
2

1

Having considered the requests, the Court finds good cause to vacate the current discovery

2

and non-exhaustion dispositive motion deadlines. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The pending

3

exhaustion-based summary judgment motion may be dispositive of the entire action, and

4

therefore it would be a waste of resources for the Court and the parties to maintain the current

5

deadlines in this action. The Court finds that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the relief

6

requested, as both parties will be permitted to conduct additional discovery if the motion for

7

summary judgment is denied.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendant’s motion for protective order, (ECF No. 45), is GRANTED IN PART;
2. Defendant’s motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order nunc pro tunc, (ECF
No. 53), is GRANTED;
3. The discovery and non-exhaustion dispositive motion deadlines set forth in the August 5,
2019 Discovery and Scheduling Order are VACATED; and
4. Once Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds has been

15

resolved, the Court will issue an amended discovery and scheduling order for the

16

continuation of discovery and filing of dispositive motions.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 20, 2020

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3