Mazza v. Austin et al

Filing 110

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 8/16/2017 DENYING as moot 107 Motion to Stay and GRANTING IN PART 109 Amended Motion to Stay Discovery. Deadlines for conducting plaintiff's deposition and filing dispositive motions are vacated and stayed pending further order of this court. Defendant Kuerston to serve responses to plaintiff's outstanding discovery requests within 21 days after the filing date of this order. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

BRYAN MAZZA,

11
12
13
14

No. 2:14-cv-0874 GEB AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

L. AUSTIN, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, pursues this civil rights

17

action on his claim that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.

18

This action proceeds against five defendants. Four of the defendants (Austin, Kuersten, Lipson

19

and McCue) are represented by the Office of the California Attorney General (AG); remaining

20

defendant Tan is represented by private counsel.

21

On August 15, 2017, three of the four defendants represented by the AG (Austin, Kuersten

22

and McCue) filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust

23

his administrative remedies as to them before commencing this action. See ECF No. 108. The

24

AG defendants now request a stay of further discovery in this action until resolution of their

25

motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 109 (Amended Motion to Stay). Defendants

26

identity two remaining discovery matters for which they seek a stay: defendant Kuerston’s

27

responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories served July 19, 2017; and plaintiff’s deposition.

28

Defendants contend that defendant Kuerston should not be tasked with responding to plaintiff’s
1

1

outstanding discovery requests, limited to the merits of this action, because Kuerston may be

2

dismissed from this action; and that plaintiff’s deposition should be postponed until it is clear

3

which defendants remain in this action.

4

Resolution of this matter does not require briefing by the other parties. Defendants’

5

motion to stay discovery will be granted in part: the deadline for convening plaintiff’s deposition

6

(as well as the deadline for filing dispositive motions) will be vacated until final resolution of the

7

pending motion for summary judgment. However, defendant Kuerston will be required to

8

respond to plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests. Even if defendant Kuerston is dismissed

9

from this action, defendant’s substantive answers to plaintiff’s discovery will likely be relevant to

10

the merits of this case against the remaining defendants. The current deadline for concluding

11

discovery, August 18, 2017, was extended by the undersigned after three separate discovery

12

motions were filed by the parties. See ECF No. 106. It is not unreasonable to require Kuerston to

13

complete the process, for which defendant will be accorded additional time. When defendant

14

Kuerston serves responses to plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests, all written discovery will

15

be concluded in this case.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1. Defendants’ amended motion to stay discovery, ECF No. 109, is granted in part.

18

2. The deadline for conducting plaintiff’s deposition, and the deadline for filing

19

dispositive motions, are vacated and stayed pending further order of this court.

20
21

3. Defendant Kuerston shall serve responses to plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests
within twenty-one (21) days after the filing date of this order.

22
23

4. Defendants’ previously filed motion to stay discovery, ECF No. 107, is denied as
moot.1

24
25

SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 16, 2017

26
27
28

1

The original motion contained a material typographical error and was not withdrawn upon the
filing of the amended motion.
2