Doyle v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations et al

Filing 33

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 29 Motion to Stay Discovery. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2013)

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

SEAN PATRICK DOYLE,

7
8
9

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
HININGER'S MOTION TO STAY
DISCOVERY

Plaintiff,

5
6

No. C 12-2769 YGR (PR)

v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
et al.,
Defendants.
/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

This is a civil rights action brought by a pro se prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. One

12

of the named Defendants, Damon T. Hininger, has filed a motion to dismiss as well as a motion to

13

stay discovery pending resolution of his motion to dismiss. A district court has broad discretion to

14

stay discovery pending the disposition of a dispositive motion. See Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v.

15

Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1560 (11th Cir. 1985); Scroggins v. Air Cargo, Inc., 534 F.2d 1124, 1133

16

(5th Cir. 1976); Hovermale v. School Bd. of Hillsborough County, 128 F.R.D. 287, 289 (M.D. Fla.

17

1989). But, motions to stay discovery are not favored where resolution of the dispositive motion

18

may not dispose of the entire case. See Panola Land Buyers Assoc. v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1560

19

(11th Cir. 1985); Hovermale, 128 F.R.D. at 289-90. Although Defendant Hininger's motion could

20

dispose of the claims against him, it would not dispose of the entire case. Moreover, staying

21

discovery would only further delay resolution of the case if the motion to dismiss is denied.

22

Accordingly, Defendant Hininger's motion for a stay is DENIED.

23

This Order terminates Docket No. 29.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

DATED: April 8, 2013
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\YGR\CR.12\Doyle2769.denySTAYdiscovery.wpd