Garcia v. Miller et al

Filing 27

ORDER granting 26 Ex Parte Application to Stay Discovery. Discovery regarding topics unrelated to the exhaustion of administrative remedies is STAYED. If Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied, the stay shall be lifted and discovery shall proceed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil procedure. The Court may adjust the deadlines set forth in the current Scheduling Order, if necessary. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal on 5/6/15. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

WILLIAM GARCIA,

Civil
No.

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO STAY
DISCOVERY

v.
AMY MILLER, et al.,

[ECF NO. 26.]

Defendants.

14

14cv2266 LAB (BGS)

15
16

I. INTRODUCTION

17

On April 21, 2015, Defendants R. Johnson, R. Boas, D.Webb, L. Calderon, S.

18

Sandoval, A. Miller, V. Cortez, R. Arias and J. Velasquez filed an ex parte application for

19

a stay of discovery until Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment regarding

20

exhaustion of administrative remedies has been decided. [ECF No. 26.] Defendants’

21

Motion for Summary Judgment was filed on April 20, 2015. [ECF No. 25.] Plaintiff pro

22

se, has not responded to the ex parte application to stay pending discovery.

23

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

24

In Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014), the Ninth Circuit explained:

25

“Exhaustion should be decided, if feasible, before reaching the merits of a

26

prisoner's claim. If discovery is appropriate, the district court may in its discretion

27

limit discovery to evidence concerning exhaustion, leaving until later — if it

28

becomes necessary — discovery directed to the merits of the suit.”
1

14cv2266 LAB (BGS)

1

Id. at 1170.

2

III. DISCUSSION

3

Defendants state that Plaintiff has propounded interrogatories, requests for

4

production of documents, and requests for admissions concerning the merits of his civil

5

rights complaint as opposed to discovery regarding exhaustion of administrative

6

remedies. [ECF No. 26 at 2:14-17.] They argue good cause exists to stay the current

7

discovery until the motion for summary judgment, which concerns only exhaustion, is

8

decided in order to preserve the resources of the parties and the Court. Id. at 3:6-11.

9

The pending motion for summary judgment on exhaustion is potentially dispositive

10

of the entire case. Moreover, the exhaustion issue can be decided without discovery

11

regarding Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants violated his rights under the First

12

Amendment, Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. [ECF No. 1 at 5: 15-18.]

13

In light of the Ninth Circuit’s guidance in Albino and the Court’s authority to limit the

14

scope of discovery when a dispositive motion is pending, (GTE Wireless, Inc. v.

15

Qualcomm, Inc., 192 F.R.D. 284, 287, fn. 3 (S.D. Cal. 2000)1, Defendants’ motion to stay

16

discovery is GRANTED. A stay of discovery will promote an efficient use of time and

17

resources for the parties and the Court to focus on exhaustion before concentrating, if

18

necessary, on issues that relate to the merits of Plaintiff’s suit.

19

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

20

As discussed above, the Court orders as follows:

21

1. Defendants’ ex parte application for a stay of discovery until Defendants’

22

Motion for Summary Judgment on exhaustion has been decided is GRANTED;

23

2. Accordingly, discovery regarding topics unrelated to the exhaustion of

24
25

administrative remedies is STAYED.
3. If Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied, the stay shall be lifted

26
1

27
28

“The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that ‘the District Court has wide
discretion in controlling discovery. Such rulings will not be overturned [by the Ninth Circuit]
unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.’ ... The Court may limit discovery so ‘that certain
matters [may] not be inquired into, or that the scope of disclosure or discovery be limited to
certain matters’ upon a showing of good cause...”
2

14cv2266 LAB (BGS)

1

and discovery shall proceed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2

2

The Court may adjust the deadlines set forth in the current Scheduling Order, if

3

necessary.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 6, 2015

6

Hon. Bernard G. Skomal
U.S. Magistrate Judge
United States District Court

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Defendants have noted in their Application that they will respond to the pending
“discovery within 30 days of the Court’s decision...” ECF No. 26 at 3:9-10; Snyder Decl. at ¶3.
3

14cv2266 LAB (BGS)