(PC) Dosio v. Odeluga et al

Filing 41

ORDER GRANTING Parties' Joint 36 Motion to Stay Discovery and Modify Discovery and Scheduling Order; ORDER IMPOSING Stay of Merits-Based Discovery and VACATING the Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines Pending Resolution of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/7/2022. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ELMER DOSIO,

12
13
14
15

1:19-cv-00675-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ JOINT
MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND
MODIFY DISCOVERY AND
SCHEDULING ORDER
(ECF No. 36.)

Plaintiff,
vs.
N. ODELUGA, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER IMPOSING STAY OF MERITSBASED DISCOVERY AND VACATING
THE DISCOVERY AND DISPOSITIVE
MOTION DEADLINES PENDING
RESOLUTION OF DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

16
17
18
19
20

Elmer Dosio (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with

21

this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds with Plaintiff’s Second

22

Amended Complaint against defendant Licensed Vocational Nurse (“LVN”) Elma Fernandez1

23

(“Defendant”) for failure to provide adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

24

(ECF No. 18.)2

25
26
1

27

Sued as E. Frandez.

2

28

On April 29, 2021, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants
from this case based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 20.)
1

1

On September 14, 2021, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing

2

a deadline of February 14, 2022 for the parties to complete discovery, and a deadline of April 14,

3

2022 for the filing of dispositive motions. (ECF No. 32.)

4

On December 15, 2021, Plaintiff and Defendant filed a joint motion to stay discovery and

5

vacate the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines pending resolution of Defendant’s motion

6

for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, (ECF No.

7

36.)
The parties’ joint motion to stay discovery and modify the Discovery and Scheduling

8
9
10

Order is now before the court. Local Rule 230(l).
II.

MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

11

Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P.

12

16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

13

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the

14

modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due

15

diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the

16

prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling

17

order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion

18

to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).

19

The parties request the court to stay merits-based discovery and vacate the discovery and

20

dispositive motion deadlines in the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order, pending resolution

21

of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on exhaustion. Defendant believes that the

22

motion for summary judgment could dispose of Plaintiff’s entire action, because Plaintiff’s

23

lawsuit is barred for failing to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit. The parties

24

have agreed that this motion applies only to merits-based discovery, and the parties are entitled

25

to take discovery for the limited purpose of the aforementioned motion for summary judgment

26

on exhaustion. Defendant argues that good cause exists to grant the motion because (1)

27

Defendant exercised due diligence in bringing the motion for summary judgment and the instant

28

motion before the close of discovery; (2) vacating these deadlines will avoid the expenditure of
2

1

resources by the parties in conducting discovery and filing motions concerning the merits of the

2

case, and (3) there is a good possibility that the motion for summary judgment will dispose of

3

the case in its entirety.

4

The court finds good cause to impose a stay on merits-based discovery in this action for

5

all parties pending resolution of the motion for summary judgment. It would be an efficient use

6

of the court’s and the parties’ resources to address exhaustion issues before reaching the merits

7

of the case. Moreover, the parties have agreed that they are entitled to conduct discovery needed

8

to address the exhaustion issue. Therefore, the parties’ joint motion shall be granted.

9

III.

CONCLUSION

10

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1.

12
13

The parties’ joint motion to stay merits-based discovery and modify
the scheduling order, filed on December 15, 2021, is granted;

2.

All merits-based discovery in this action (not including discovery related to the

14

issue of exhaustion) is stayed pending resolution of Defendant’s motion for

15

summary judgment;

16

3.

The discovery and dispositive motion deadlines are vacated; and

17

4.

If needed, the court will reset the deadlines following resolution of the pending

18

motion for summary judgment.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 7, 2022

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3