(PC) Randolph v. Sandoval ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COLIN M. RANDOLPH, Case No. 1:18-cv-00968-NONE-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND 13 v. MODIFY DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER 14 SANDOVAL, et al., (ECF No. 39) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Colin M. Randolph (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds 19 against Defendants Benavides and Carrillo for excessive force in violation of the Eighth 20 Amendment and against Defendants Sandoval, Speidell, and Benavides for retaliation in violation 21 of the First Amendment. 22 On October 13, 2020, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order setting the 23 deadline for filing all dispositive motions (other than a motion for summary judgment for failure 24 to exhaust) for August 23, 2021. (ECF No. 30.) On February 2, 2021, Defendants filed a motion 25 for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. 26 (ECF No. 38.) The motion is not yet fully briefed. 27 Together with the motion for summary judgment, Defendants filed the instant motion to 28 modify the Court’s discovery and scheduling order to stay merits-based discovery and to vacate 1 the deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions until it rules on Defendants’ motion for 2 summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion. (ECF No. 39.) The Court finds a response 3 unnecessary and the motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 4 Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and 5 with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily 6 considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 7 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot 8 reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was 9 not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id. 10 Defendants state that good cause exists to grant the motion because Defendants exercised 11 due diligence in bringing the motion for summary judgment and in bringing the instant motion 12 before the close of discovery and well before the dispositive motion deadline. (ECF No. 39.) 13 Further, vacating these deadlines will avoid the expenditure of resources by the parties in 14 conducting discovery and filing motions concerning the merits of the case, as Defendants argue 15 that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will dispose of the case against Defendants. 16 Defendants therefore request that the Court vacate the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines 17 pending resolution of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion. 18 (Id.) 19 Having considered Defendants’ moving papers, the Court finds good cause to modify the 20 Discovery and Scheduling Order. The Court finds it would be an efficient use of the resources of 21 the Court and the parties to address any exhaustion issues prior to reaching the merits of this 22 action. Finally, the Court finds that the continuance granted here will not result in prejudice to 23 Plaintiff, where the exhaustion-based summary judgment motion remains pending and is not yet 24 fully briefed. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 26 1. Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order, (ECF No. 39), is GRANTED; 27 2. Merits-based discovery is STAYED; 28 3. The discovery and dispositive motion deadlines are VACATED; and 1 4. As necessary and appropriate, the Court will reset the deadlines following resolution of 2 the pending motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaustion administrative 3 remedies. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: February 4, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28