Shaw v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Department

Filing 48

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/23/18 ORDERING that Defendants' Motion to Stay 42 is GRANTED. And Discovery in this matter is STAYED until resolution of the 6/23/17 Motion to Dismiss, at which time the parties may stipulate to new discovery deadlines and/or proceed according to any subsequent scheduling order. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHEENA SHAW,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

18

ORDER

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

No. 2:16-cv-00729 TLN CKD

I. Introduction
Before the court is defendants’ motion to stay this matter pending resolution of the motion

19

to dismiss submitted August 1, 2017. (ECF No. 42.) This matter came before the court for

20

hearing on March 21, 2018. Plaintiff was represented by Jeff Price, who appeared telephonically,

21

and defendants were represented by Wendy Motooka. At the close of the hearing, the court took

22

the matter under submission.

23

This action proceeds on the First Amended Complaint against Sacramento County and

24

several Sheriff’s Department employees. (ECF No. 15 (“FAC”).) Plaintiff alleges that, on April

25

5, 2014, officers made a warrantless entry into her home and used excessive force on her while

26

they arrested her 18-year-old son. (FAC, ¶¶ 23-64.) In 2017, defendants filed a motion to

27

dismiss, arguing that all plaintiff’s claims are time-barred and/or fail to state a claim for relief.

28

(ECF No. 32-1.) In opposition to the motion, plaintiff clarified that she was also suing for her
1

1

own alleged false arrest on April 5, 2014.1 The district court deemed the motion submitted

2

without argument on August 1, 2017. (ECF No. 39.) That motion remains pending.

3

II. Motion to Stay

4

In the instant motion, defendants seek (1) to stay discovery until a ruling issues on the

5

motion to dismiss, or alternatively, (2) an order allowing disclosure of certain records subject to a

6

sealing order by the Sacramento Superior Court and additional time to respond to discovery.

7

(ECF No. 42.) The parties filed a Joint Status Report/Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan on August 1,

8

2017, proposing discovery deadlines, but there is no Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 40.)

9

On February 4, 2018, plaintiff served three sets of discovery requests: (1) Request for

10

Production of Documents to the Sheriff’s Department; (2) Request for Production of Documents

11

to Sacramento County; and (3) Request for Admissions to defendant Mason, who allegedly

12

pinned plaintiff to the ground and stomped on her back. Plaintiff seeks documents concerning the

13

decision to prosecute her for resisting arrest, any search warrant for her home, and law

14

enforcement actions on the night of the incident. (ECF Nos. 44-1, 44-2.) Many of plaintiff’s

15

requests involve records related to the juvenile court arrest warrant for plaintiff’s son, Shawn

16

Shaw, and its execution. (ECF No. 43 at 4.)
Defendants have petitioned the state court for Shawn Shaw’s records, and petitioner does

17
18

not object to their unsealing. However, the state court has denied disclosure, evidently because

19

Shawn Shaw sealed these records under a California law allowing persons convicted of juvenile

20

offenses to have their records sealed. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 781. (ECF No. 43-2 at 55.)

21

Section 781 does not provide for the unsealing of such records for use in a civil case, and the

22

issue may have to be litigated. See In re James H., 154 Cal. App. 4th 1078, 1084 (Cal. Ct. App.

23

2007) (records sealed under § 781 which do not fall under the statute’s express exceptions may

24

only be disclosed with the permission of the juvenile court and by order of the juvenile court); see

25

also Bilbrew v. City of Hawthorne, 2013 WL 12125749 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2013) (granting

26

motion to compel production of sealed juvenile records under a protective order). Defendants

27
28

1

She was released the morning after her arrest, and the charge against her (resisting arrest) was
ultimately dismissed. (ECF No. 38 at 3.)
2

1

have not responded to the discovery requests, instead filing the instant motion.

2

Courts may issue a protective order staying discovery pending the resolution of potentially

3

dispositive motions. See e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988) (no

4

abuse of discretion where district court stayed discovery until issue of immunity was decided on

5

summary judgment). In appropriate circumstances, a discovery stay “furthers the goal of

6

efficiency for the court and litigants.” Id. at 685. Here, plaintiff argues that defendants’

7

arguments for dismissal are frivolous and, in any event, she is likely to be granted leave to amend.

8

However, the motion to dismiss may result in the dismissal of one or more claims as time-barred

9

and thus is “potentially dispositive.”2
Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that she will “work with the plaintiff’s son to obtain an order

10
11

from the juvenile court unsealing the juvenile court records so that those records that are pertinent

12

to this case can be disclosed pursuant to a protective order.” (ECF No. 43 at 5.) Plaintiff is free

13

to start this process; however, plaintiff identifies no pressing need to require defendants to

14

produce related records pursuant to a protective order before the motion to dismiss is resolved.

15

The ordinary course of action would be for plaintiff to await a ruling on the motion to dismiss,

16

file any amended complaint as needed, and proceed according to any subsequent scheduling

17

order.

18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

1. Defendants’ motion to stay (ECF No. 42) is granted; and

20

2. Discovery in this matter is stayed until resolution of the June 23, 2017 motion to

21

dismiss, at which time the parties may stipulate to new discovery deadlines and/or proceed

22

according to any subsequent scheduling order.

23

Dated: March 23, 2018

24
25

2 / shaw0729.stay

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28

2

Plaintiff urges this court to deem the motion to dismiss “frivolous” and therefore not potentially
dispositive. However, the merits of the motion to dismiss are before the District Judge, not the
undersigned.
3