(PC) Dosio v. Odeluga ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELMER DOSIO, 1:19-cv-00675-DAD-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND 13 vs. MODIFY DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER 14 N. ODELUGA, et al., (ECF No. 36.) 15 Defendants. ORDER IMPOSING STAY OF MERITS- BASED DISCOVERY AND VACATING 16 THE DISCOVERY AND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES PENDING 17 RESOLUTION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 18 19 20 Elmer Dosio (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 21 this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds with Plaintiff’s Second 22 Amended Complaint against defendant Licensed Vocational Nurse (“LVN”) Elma Fernandez1 23 (“Defendant”) for failure to provide adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 24 (ECF No. 18.)2 25 26 1 Sued as E. Frandez. 27 2 On April 29, 2021, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants 28 from this case based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 20.) 1 On September 14, 2021, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing 2 a deadline of February 14, 2022 for the parties to complete discovery, and a deadline of April 14, 3 2022 for the filing of dispositive motions. (ECF No. 32.) 4 On December 15, 2021, Plaintiff and Defendant filed a joint motion to stay discovery and 5 vacate the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines pending resolution of Defendant’s motion 6 for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, (ECF No. 7 36.) 8 The parties’ joint motion to stay discovery and modify the Discovery and Scheduling 9 Order is now before the court. Local Rule 230(l). 10 II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 11 Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 13 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 14 modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 15 diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the 16 prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling 17 order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion 18 to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 19 The parties request the court to stay merits-based discovery and vacate the discovery and 20 dispositive motion deadlines in the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order, pending resolution 21 of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on exhaustion. Defendant believes that the 22 motion for summary judgment could dispose of Plaintiff’s entire action, because Plaintiff’s 23 lawsuit is barred for failing to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit. The parties 24 have agreed that this motion applies only to merits-based discovery, and the parties are entitled 25 to take discovery for the limited purpose of the aforementioned motion for summary judgment 26 on exhaustion. Defendant argues that good cause exists to grant the motion because (1) 27 Defendant exercised due diligence in bringing the motion for summary judgment and the instant 28 motion before the close of discovery; (2) vacating these deadlines will avoid the expenditure of 1 resources by the parties in conducting discovery and filing motions concerning the merits of the 2 case, and (3) there is a good possibility that the motion for summary judgment will dispose of 3 the case in its entirety. 4 The court finds good cause to impose a stay on merits-based discovery in this action for 5 all parties pending resolution of the motion for summary judgment. It would be an efficient use 6 of the court’s and the parties’ resources to address exhaustion issues before reaching the merits 7 of the case. Moreover, the parties have agreed that they are entitled to conduct discovery needed 8 to address the exhaustion issue. Therefore, the parties’ joint motion shall be granted. 9 III. CONCLUSION 10 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The parties’ joint motion to stay merits-based discovery and modify 12 the scheduling order, filed on December 15, 2021, is granted; 13 2. All merits-based discovery in this action (not including discovery related to the 14 issue of exhaustion) is stayed pending resolution of Defendant’s motion for 15 summary judgment; 16 3. The discovery and dispositive motion deadlines are vacated; and 17 4. If needed, the court will reset the deadlines following resolution of the pending 18 motion for summary judgment. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: January 7, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28