(PC) Smith v. Gibbs ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH, Case No. 1:18-cv-00854-LJO-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 32) 14 GIBBS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Lawrence Christopher Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se 18 and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action 19 proceeds against Defendants Gibbs and Hardy for the alleged excessive force incident of 20 February 6, 2014. 21 On September 4, 2019, Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that 22 Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform 23 Act. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff filed his opposition on October 15, 2019. (ECF No. 30.) 24 Defendants filed their reply on October 21, 2019. (ECF No. 31.) The motion for summary 25 judgment is fully briefed and is pending before the Court. 26 Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion for protective order, filed December 16, 27 2019. (ECF No. 32.) Defendants argue that they should be relieved of the obligation to respond 28 to discovery until forty-five days after the Court rules on the pending motion for summary 1 judgment, if necessary, as the motion may resolve the case in its entirety. (Id.) On January 15, 2 2020, Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for protective order. 3 (ECF No. 33.) 4 The district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 5 control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North 6 American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). The party seeking the stay bears the burden of 7 establishing the need to stay the action. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708. 8 In light of Plaintiff’s statement of non-opposition, and the possibility that a ruling on the 9 pending motion for summary judgment may resolve this case in its entirety, the Court finds a stay 10 of discovery is appropriate. 11 Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for protective order, (ECF No. 32), is HEREBY 12 GRANTED. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s November 20, 2019 discovery requests 13 within forty-five days following the Court’s ruling on the pending motion for summary judgment, 14 if the ruling does not resolve this action in its entirety. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: January 16, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28