(PC) Arena v. Navarro ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PETER M. ARENA, Case No. 1:20-cv-00617-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND TO 13 v. MODIFY DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER 14 NAVARRO, et al., (ECF No. 43) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Peter M. Arena (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 19 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Medina, Allison, Ramos, Pacheco, and 20 Navarro for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. All parties have consented to 21 the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge for all further proceedings in this action, 22 including trial and entry of judgment. (ECF No. 35.) 23 On March 25, 2021, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order setting the 24 deadline for filing all dispositive motions (other than a motion for summary judgment for failure 25 to exhaust) for February 3, 2022. (ECF No. 24.) On April 16, 2021, Defendants filed a motion 26 for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. 27 (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff’s May 28, 2021 opposition to the summary judgment motion was 28 accepted as timely. (ECF Nos. 36, 37.) Following an extension of time, Defendants’ reply was 1 timely filed on June 17, 2021. (ECF No. 40.) The motion is fully briefed. 2 Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay discovery and to modify the 3 discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 43.) Defendants move to stay discovery and to vacate 4 the remaining deadlines in the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order pending resolution of 5 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion. (Id.) Plaintiff has not yet 6 filed a response, but the Court finds a response unnecessary and the motion is deemed submitted. 7 Local Rule 230(l). 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 Defendants state that good cause exists to grant the motion because Defendants exercised 15 due diligence in bringing the motion for summary judgment and the instant motion to modify the 16 discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 43-1.) Defendants filed their motion for summary 17 judgment within one month of the Court issuing the Discovery and Scheduling Order, and 18 vacating these deadlines will avoid the expenditure of resources by the parties in conducting 19 discovery and filing motions concerning the merits of the case. Defendants argue that these tasks 20 will be needless if the Court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which would 21 dispose of the case. Defendants therefore request that the Court stay discovery and vacate the 22 discovery and dispositive motion deadlines pending resolution of Defendants’ motion for 23 summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion. (Id.) 24 Having considered Defendants’ moving papers, the Court finds good cause to modify the 25 Discovery and Scheduling Order. The Court finds it would be an efficient use of the resources of 26 the Court and the parties to address any exhaustion issues prior to reaching the merits of this 27 action. The Court further notes that a stay of merits-based discovery does not prevent the parties 28 from conducting any further discovery needed to address the issue of whether Plaintiff exhausted 1 his administrative remedies. Finally, the Court finds that the continuance granted here will not 2 result in prejudice to Plaintiff. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 4 1. Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order, (ECF No. 43), is GRANTED; 5 2. Merits-based discovery (not including discovery related to the issue of exhaustion) is 6 STAYED; 7 3. The discovery and dispositive motion deadlines are VACATED; and 8 4. As necessary and appropriate, the Court will reset the deadlines following resolution of 9 the pending motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaustion administrative 10 remedies. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: September 27, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28