Mann et al v. City of Sacramento et al

Filing 108

ORDER re 103 Defendants' Motion to Stay, signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 5/4/2021: Accordingly, considering all of the Nken factors, defendants' motion to stay discovery pending appeal 103 is DENIED to the limited extent that plaintiffs seek the contents of the City's IA Report. To the extent that defendants seek to take depositions, they shall make application to the assigned magistrate judge, setting forth the witnesses they seek to depose and the nature of t he testimony they expect to elicit. Pending resolution of defendants' appeal, no depositions may be taken without advance approval of the assigned magistrate judge. Upon resolution of the Officer defendants' pending appeal, counsel shall file a joint status report within ten days of the issuance of the Ninth Circuit's mandate. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12

ROBERT MANN, SR.; VERN MURPHYMANN; and DEBORAH MANN,

13
14
15
16
17
18

No. 2:17-cv-01201 WBS DB

Plaintiffs,
ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO STAY

v.
CITY OF SACRAMENTO; SACRAMENTO
POLICE DEPARTMENT; SAMUEL D.
SOMERS, JR.; JOHN C. TENNIS; and
RANDY R. LOZOYA,
Defendants.

19
----oo0oo----

20
21

On February 24, the court denied defendants Tennis and

22

Lozoya’s (the “Officer defendants”) motion to dismiss plaintiff’s

23

§ 1983 claim for loss of intimate association rights under the

24

First Amendment.

25

involved a denial of the Officer defendants’ request for

26

qualified immunity, the Officer defendants appealed the court’s

27

order on March 11, 2021.

28

(Docket No. 98.)

Because the court’s order

(Docket No. 99.)

Defendants City of Sacramento, Sacramento Police
1

1

Department, and Samuel D. Somers (the “City defendants”) now move

2

to stay proceedings pending the Officers’ interlocutory appeal.

3

((Mot. to Stay (Docket No. 103).)

4

A federal court can stay a proceeding pending the

5

outcome of an interlocutory appeal.

See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S.

6

418, 421 (2009).

7

the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of

8

the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for

9

itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”

The power to stay proceedings “is incidental to

Landis v. N. Am. Co.,

10

299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).

11

district courts to consider four factors when determining whether

12

a stay is appropriate: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a

13

strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2)

14

whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay;

15

(3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the

16

other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the

17

public interest lies.”

18

The Supreme Court has instructed

Nken, 556 U.S. at 434.

Here, while it is unclear exactly how the Ninth Circuit

19

will rule on the Officer defendants’ appeal, plaintiffs’ Monell

20

claim against the City should remain viable regardless of how the

21

court rules on the Officer defendants’ qualified immunity.

22

Horton v. City of Santa Maria, 915 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2019)

23

(“A municipality may be liable if an individual officer is

24

exonerated on the basis of the defense of qualified immunity,

25

because even if an officer is entitled to immunity a

26

constitutional violation might still have occurred.”).

27
28

See

Plaintiffs represent that they seek the contents of an
Internal Affairs report (“IA Report”) prepared by the City of
2

1

Sacramento after the shooting of Joseph in 2016.

2

information will be relevant to plaintiffs’ Monell claim, and the

3

court sees no reason why turning it over to plaintiffs now would

4

prejudice defendants.

5

to take depositions, including those of the Officer defendants.

6

Allowing those depositions to be taken now, before resolution of

7

the pending appeal, could create the need to take some

8

depositions again after the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

9

That

Plaintiffs also represent that they wish

Accordingly, considering all of the Nken factors,

10

defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending appeal (Docket No.

11

103) is DENIED to the limited extent that plaintiffs seek the

12

contents of the City’s IA Report.

13

seek to take depositions, they shall make application to the

14

assigned magistrate judge, setting forth the witnesses they seek

15

to depose and the nature of the testimony they expect to elicit.

16

Pending resolution of defendants’ appeal, no depositions may be

17

taken without advance approval of the assigned magistrate judge.

18

To the extent that defendants

Upon resolution of the Officer defendants’ pending

19

appeal, counsel shall file a joint status report within ten days

20

of the issuance of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 4, 2021

23
24
25
26
27
28
3