Mazza v. Austin et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:14-cv-0874 GEB AC P
L. AUSTIN, et al.,
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, pursues this civil rights
action on his claim that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.
This action proceeds against five defendants. Four of the defendants (Austin, Kuersten, Lipson
and McCue) are represented by the Office of the California Attorney General (AG); remaining
defendant Tan is represented by private counsel.
On August 15, 2017, three of the four defendants represented by the AG (Austin, Kuersten
and McCue) filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies as to them before commencing this action. See ECF No. 108. The
AG defendants now request a stay of further discovery in this action until resolution of their
motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 109 (Amended Motion to Stay). Defendants
identity two remaining discovery matters for which they seek a stay: defendant Kuerston’s
responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories served July 19, 2017; and plaintiff’s deposition.
Defendants contend that defendant Kuerston should not be tasked with responding to plaintiff’s
outstanding discovery requests, limited to the merits of this action, because Kuerston may be
dismissed from this action; and that plaintiff’s deposition should be postponed until it is clear
which defendants remain in this action.
Resolution of this matter does not require briefing by the other parties. Defendants’
motion to stay discovery will be granted in part: the deadline for convening plaintiff’s deposition
(as well as the deadline for filing dispositive motions) will be vacated until final resolution of the
pending motion for summary judgment. However, defendant Kuerston will be required to
respond to plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests. Even if defendant Kuerston is dismissed
from this action, defendant’s substantive answers to plaintiff’s discovery will likely be relevant to
the merits of this case against the remaining defendants. The current deadline for concluding
discovery, August 18, 2017, was extended by the undersigned after three separate discovery
motions were filed by the parties. See ECF No. 106. It is not unreasonable to require Kuerston to
complete the process, for which defendant will be accorded additional time. When defendant
Kuerston serves responses to plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests, all written discovery will
be concluded in this case.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants’ amended motion to stay discovery, ECF No. 109, is granted in part.
2. The deadline for conducting plaintiff’s deposition, and the deadline for filing
dispositive motions, are vacated and stayed pending further order of this court.
3. Defendant Kuerston shall serve responses to plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests
within twenty-one (21) days after the filing date of this order.
4. Defendants’ previously filed motion to stay discovery, ECF No. 107, is denied as
DATED: August 16, 2017
The original motion contained a material typographical error and was not withdrawn upon the
filing of the amended motion.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?