Grenning v. Klemme et al

Filing 66

ORDER Granting 59 Motion for Protective Order. All discovery stayed pending this Court's ruling on ECF No. 56 , ECF No. 64 and ECF No. 61 , all of which are reset for hearing on 04/07/14 at 6:30 p.m. without oral argument. Signed by Senior Judge Justin L. Quackenbush. (PL, Case Administrator) (cc pro se plaintiff Neil Grenning via first class mail). Modified on 3/5/2014 (PL, Case Administrator).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

NEIL GRENNING,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
) NO. CV-12-0600-JLQ
)
v.
) ORDER GRANTING MOTION
) FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
RISA A. KLEMME, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
_______________________________)

13
14
15
16

BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order (ECF
No. 59), filed in conjunction with Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 56) on February 4, 2014.
I.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

The Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner currently incarcerated at Airway Heights
Corrections Center, filed the present action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for alleged violations of his rights secured by the First Amendment. In his Second
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19) filed August 6, 2013, he claims the Defendants
participated in a “coordinated campaign of harassment” in response to his speech
contained in both letters and a manuscript he authored, as well as his filing of
grievances. He alleges the Defendants retaliated against him by restricting his mail,
issuing an infraction, placing him in segregation, conducting cell searches, and
demoting him to medium custody.

26
27
28

BACKGROUND

On December 19, 2014, the court entered a Scheduling Order setting a
discovery deadline of July 18, 2014 and trial date of November 17, 2014. (ECF No.
55).
ORDER – 1

On January 6, 2014, Plaintiff served a total of 53 requests for production on

1
2

Defendants. (ECF No. 59 at 2). On February 3, 2014, defense counsel spoke with

3

Plaintiff on the phone to discuss postponement of discovery until the court ruled

4

upon the Motion for Summary Judgment counsel would be filing, but the parties

5

failed to reach a resolution. Id.
Presently before the court is the Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order

6
7

asking the court to stay discovery and relieve them of the duty to respond to the

8

Plaintiff’s discovery requests until resolution of the issue of qualified immunity

9

raised in Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion. Plaintiff did not file a response

10

to the Motion for Protective Order. However, in Plaintiff’s Response to the Motion

11

for Summary Judgment, he asserts the outstanding discovery is material to his

12

ability to respond to the Summary Judgment Motion and to defeat qualified

13

immunity.

14

II.

15

DISCUSSION
For good cause, the court may deny or limit discovery “to protect a party or

16

person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense

17

....” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c); see also Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th

18

Cir.1988). The court has broad discretion to stay discovery while a dispositive

19

motion is pending. See Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984)

20

(holding that Rule 26(c) confers “broad discretion on the trial court to decide when

21

a protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is required”). The

22

party requesting a protective order bears the burden of showing good cause. Rivera

23

v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir.2004). The Supreme Court has

24

repeatedly held that when qualified immunity is raised as a defense by government

25

officials, the question should be resolved at the earliest possible stage of litigation

26

and discovery should be stayed until the threshold issue of immunity is resolved.

27

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 816–818 (1982) (“bare allegations of malice

28

should not suffice to subject government officials either to the costs of trial or to the
burdens of broad-reaching discovery”); see also Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S.
ORDER – 2

1
2

635, 651(1987).
The court concludes that good cause exists to stay discovery pending the

3

court’s review and resolution of the Plaintiffs' Motion contending that he must be

4

permitted to conduct discovery in order to properly oppose the Motion for Summary

5

Judgment and the Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity.

6

ACCORDINGLY IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

7

1. Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 59) is GRANTED.

8

2. All discovery in this matter is STAYED pending this court’s ruling on a)

9

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 56); b) Plaintiff’s Motion to

10

Stay Summary Judgment Until Completion of Discovery Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.

11

56(d)(ECF No. 64); and c) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 61). These

12

Motions will be considered by the court at the same time and will be deemed

13

submitted upon completion of the briefing. The Clerk of the Court shall RESET the

14

hearing date of ECF No. 56, ECF No. 61, and ECF No. 64 to April 7, 2014.

15

3. The parties are relieved from complying with the March 14, 2014 and

16

April 11, 2014 deadlines for Rule 26(a)(2) reports and final trial witness lists.

17

Upon resolution of the pending Motions, the court will reset these deadlines if

18

necessary.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter this Order, provide
copies to Plaintiff and counsel for the Defendants.
Dated this 5th day of March, 2014.
s/ Justin L. Quackenbush
JUSTIN L. QUACKENBUSH
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER – 3