(PC) Brummett v. Allison ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELVIN RAY BRUMMETT, JR., Case No. 1:22-cv-00407-ADA-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY 13 v. DISCOVERY AND VACATE DISCOVERY AND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES 14 ALLISON, et al., PENDING RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 32) 16 17 Plaintiff Melvin Ray Brummett, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s first 19 amended complaint against Defendants V. Diaz and D. Escalera for excessive force in violation 20 of the Eighth Amendment. 21 On May 23, 2023, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order setting the deadline 22 for completion of all discovery for January 23, 2024, and the deadline for filing all dispositive 23 motions (other than a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust) for April 1, 2024. 24 (ECF No. 25.) On September 25, 2023, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the 25 ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff filed 26 an opposition on October 18, 2023, (ECF No. 29), and Defendants filed a reply on October 30, 27 2023, (ECF No. 30). Pursuant to the Court’s November 1, 2023 order, Plaintiff’s supplemental 28 opposition, if any, is due on or before December 4, 2023. (ECF No. 31.) 1 Currently before the Court is Defendants’ ex parte application to stay discovery and 2 vacate discovery and dispositive motion deadlines pending ruling on motion for summary 3 judgment, filed November 20, 2023. (ECF No. 32.) Defendants move to stay discovery and to 4 vacate the remaining deadlines in the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order pending resolution 5 of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion. (Id.) Plaintiff has not 6 yet filed a response, but the Court finds a response unnecessary and the motion is deemed 7 submitted. 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 the application should be granted because the Court requires no 15 additional information to rule on the pending motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff would not 16 be prejudiced by a stay of discovery, and if the pending motion for summary judgment is granted, 17 the entire matter would be disposed of. (ECF No. 32.) If Defendants are required to engage in 18 discovery proceedings, that is time and effort that would be wasted if Defendants’ motion for 19 summary judgment is ultimately granted and the case dismissed. In addition, Defendants 20 exercised due diligence in bringing the motion for summary judgment and the instant application 21 well before the close of discovery. Vacating the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines will 22 avoid the expenditure of resources by the parties in conducting discovery and filing motions 23 concerning the merits of the case. (Id.) 24 Having considered Defendants’ moving papers, the Court finds good cause to modify the 25 Discovery and Scheduling Order to stay merits-based discovery and to vacate the discovery and 26 dispositive motion deadlines. The Court finds it would be an efficient use of the resources of the 27 Court and the parties to address any exhaustion issues prior to reaching the merits of this action. 28 The Court further notes that a stay of merits-based discovery does not prevent the parties from 1 conducting any further discovery needed to address the issue of whether Plaintiff exhausted his 2 | administrative remedies, particularly in light of the pending deadline for the filing of any 3 | supplemental opposition by Plaintiff. Finally, the Court finds that the relief granted here will not 4 | result in prejudice to Plaintiff. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 6 1. Defendants’ ex parte application to stay discovery and vacate discovery and dispositive 7 motion deadlines pending ruling on motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 32), is 8 GRANTED; 9 2. Merits-based discovery (not including discovery related to the issue of exhaustion) is 10 STAYED; 11 3. The discovery and dispositive motion deadlines are VACATED; and 12 4. As necessary and appropriate, the Court will reset the deadlines following resolution of 13 the pending motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaustion administrative 14 remedies. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 17 | Dated: _November 22, 2023 _ ef UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28