(PC) Rivas v. Williams ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL J. RIVAS, Case No. 1:19-cv-00328-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY 13 v. DISCOVERY AND MODIFY THE DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER 14 WILLIAMS, et al., (ECF No. 38) 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. Introduction 18 Plaintiff Daniel J. Rivas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against 20 Defendants Williams and Garcia for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation 21 of the Eighth Amendment. All parties have consented to United States Magistrate Judge 22 jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 6, 24.) 23 On February 18, 2021, following three extensions of time, Defendants filed a motion for 24 summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his available 25 administrative remedies. (ECF No. 37.) Plaintiff’s opposition is currently due on or before 26 March 15, 2021. 27 On February 24, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to stay all discovery and vacate the 28 remaining deadlines in the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order pending resolution of the 1 summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 38.) Pursuant to the Court’s July 22, 2020 Discovery and 2 Scheduling Order, the deadline for the completion of all discovery is March 22, 2021, and the 3 deadline for filing all dispositive motions is June 1, 2021. (ECF No. 28.) 4 Although Plaintiff has not had the opportunity to file a response to Defendants’ motion to 5 stay discovery and modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order, the Court finds a response 6 unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 7 II. Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery and Vacate Deadlines 8 Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and 9 with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily 10 considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 11 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot 12 reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was 13 not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id. 14 In their motion, Defendants argue that the pending motion for summary judgment for 15 failure to exhaust administrative remedies will potentially dispose of the entire case, as the motion 16 was brought as to Plaintiff’s only claim in this action. (ECF No. 38-1.) Defendants further argue 17 that the Court can rule on Defendants’ exhaustion motion without additional discovery, because 18 Defendants’ motion includes sufficient information about Plaintiff’s grievance history and his 19 failure to exhaust his claim in this case, and because Plaintiff has equal access to his own 20 grievance documents and so will not need additional discovery as to the exhaustion issue. 21 Finally, Defendants argue that good cause exists to vacate the discovery and dispositive motion 22 deadlines pending resolution of the exhaustion motion because if the motion is granted, the entire 23 case will be dismissed, and it would be a waste of resources for the parties to have to engage in 24 discovery and other motion practice before the exhaustion motion is decided. (Id.) 25 Having considered Defendants’ moving papers, the Court finds good cause to grant the 26 motion, in part. The Court finds it appropriate to stay merits-based discovery and to vacate the 27 discovery and dispositive motion deadlines in this action. Defendants have been diligent in filing 28 the dispositive motion, and it would be a waste of the resources of the Court and the parties to 1 require the preparation of potentially unnecessary merits-based discovery or the filing of 2 unnecessary dispositive motions. 3 However, to the extent Plaintiff has served discovery requests relating to the issue of 4 exhaustion of administrative remedies, Defendants are not relieved of their existing 5 obligation to timely respond to those requests. Given that Plaintiff has not had the opportunity 6 to respond to Defendants’ motion to stay all discovery in this action, the Court finds it appropriate 7 to require Defendants to complete any outstanding discovery requests related to the exhaustion 8 issue, as required by the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order. Although Defendants argue 9 that no further information is needed for the Court to decide the exhaustion motion, Plaintiff may 10 well disagree. 11 Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the relief requested, as the 12 Court will reset the applicable deadlines, if necessary, following a ruling on the pending motion. 13 III. Order 14 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 15 1. Defendants’ motion to stay discovery and modify the discovery and scheduling order, 16 (ECF No. 38), is GRANTED IN PART, as discussed above; 17 2. All merits-based discovery is STAYED, as discussed above; 18 3. The discovery and dispositive motion deadlines are VACATED; 19 4. Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment remains due on or before 20 March 15, 2021; and 21 5. As necessary and appropriate, the Court will reset the deadlines following resolution of 22 the pending motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: February 25, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28