Hampton v. Haynie et al

Filing 39

ORDER granting 37 Motion for Protective Order signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 06/16/15. Discovery in this action is stayed pending resolution of defendants motion for summary judgment. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES HAMPTON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-2038 TLN KJN P

v.

ORDER

R. HAYNIE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

17
18

U.S.C. § 1983. On May 18, 2015, defendants filed a motion for protective order. Plaintiff

19

opposes the motion. Good cause appearing, the undersigned grants the motion as discussed

20

below.

21

I. Background

22

Plaintiff alleges that defendants R. Haynie, D. Sherburn, and Sgt. Dragash failed to protect

23

plaintiff, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, by knowingly housing plaintiff with an inmate

24

known to be assaultive of other inmates. On March 12, 2015, the court issued a discovery and

25

scheduling order. On March 16, 2015, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on

26

their claim that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing the instant action.

27

Defendants seek to stay discovery on the merits of plaintiff’s claims pending resolution of

28

defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants state that on May 14, 2015, plaintiff
1

1

served his first set of interrogatories and request for production of documents, none of which bear

2

on the issue of exhaustion, but rather focus on plaintiff’s substantive claims and defendants’

3

personal histories.1

4

Plaintiff contends that the court issued a discovery order and argues defendants failed to

5

object within 21 days as required by Local Rule 230(l), and argues their motion is untimely.

6

Plaintiff also contends that defendants “impeded his exhaustion,” and now don’t want plaintiff’s

7

complaint to continue.

8

II. Analysis

9

“Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought ..., and for good

10

cause shown, the court . . . may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person

11

from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P.

12

26(c). Stays of proceeding in federal court, including stays of discovery, are committed to the

13

discretion of the trial court. See, e.g., Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir.1987).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides that “[n]o action shall be

14
15

brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 . . . , or any other Federal law, by a

16

prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative

17

remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Thus, proper and timely

18

exhaustion of administrative remedies is required prior to filing in federal court. Booth v.

19

Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006).

20

Defendants timely filed their motion for summary judgment pursuant to the court’s

21

scheduling order. Defendants were not required to seek a protective order until such an order was

22

needed. Here, plaintiff propounded his discovery requests on May 14, 2015, and defendants filed

23

their motion four days later. As such, defendants’ motion was timely brought.
Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has expressly stated that “the exhaustion question in PLRA

24
25

cases should be decided as early as feasible” and, “if feasible, before reaching the merits of a

26

1

27
28

Defendants also ask the court to waive the meet and confer requirements set forth in Rule 26 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 251. (ECF No. 37-1 at 5.) However, in the
March 12, 2015 order, the parties were informed that “unless otherwise ordered, Local Rule 251
shall not apply.” (ECF No. 27 at 5.) Thus, no further order is required.
2

1

prisoner’s claim.” Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 135 S.

2

Ct. 403 (2014). Plaintiff does not argue that he seeks discovery to support his opposition to the

3

pending motion for summary judgment. Rather, plaintiff states he seeks discovery pertaining to

4

“relevant issues.”

5

Based on a review of defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment, the court finds

6

good cause for granting defendants’ motion for a protective order. See Wood v. McEwen, 644

7

F.2d 797, 801-02 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendants’ motion is based solely on the ground that plaintiff

8

allegedly failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and plaintiff’s discovery requests are not

9

related to the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Resolution of defendants’ pending

10

motion may obviate the need for discovery. Therefore, plaintiff’s need for immediate discovery

11

as to the merits of his claims is outweighed by defendants’ burden in responding to discovery

12

requests that may not be necessary if the motion for summary judgment is granted. Thus,

13

discovery is stayed pending resolution of defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

14

III. Conclusion

15

Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

16

1. Defendants’ motion for protective order (ECF No. 37) is granted;

17

2. Discovery in this action is stayed pending resolution of defendants’ motion for

18
19

summary judgment; and
3. Following resolution of defendant’s motion for summary judgment, a revised

20

scheduling order will issue, if appropriate.

21

Dated: June 16, 2015

22
23
/hamp2038.po

24
25
26
27
28
3