(PC) Hendrix v. Arce ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENJAMIN HENDRIX, Case No. 1:20-cv-01307-AWI-BAK (SKO) (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 13 v. MOTION TO STAY 14 ARCE, (Doc. 49) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Benjamin Hendrix is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 On March 24, 2022, the Court issued its Order Granting Defendant’s Second Motion to 21 Modify Discovery and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 47.) The deadline for motions challenging the 22 exhaustion of administrative remedies was extended to April 29, 2022, the deadline for 23 completing all discovery was extended to July 15, 2022, and the deadline for filing pretrial 24 dispositive motions was extended to September 29, 2022. All other deadlines remained in effect. 25 (Id. at 2.) 26 On April 29, 2022, Defendant Arce filed a motion for summary judgment asserting 27 Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust an administrative remedy. (Doc. 48.)1 1 On May 9, 2022, Defendant filed a motion seeking a stay of all discovery and associated 2 deadlines pending a ruling on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 49-1 at 1.) 3 Although the time for a response by Plaintiff has not yet passed (see Local Rule 230(l)), the Court 4 finds one unnecessary. 5 II. DISCUSSION 6 Defendant seeks an order staying all discovery and vacating all deadlines pending this 7 Court’s determination of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment for a failure to exhaust 8 administrative remedies. (Doc. 49.) Defendant contends the Court should grant the requested stay 9 because the pending summary judgment motion could dispose of the entire action and eliminate 10 the need for discovery. (Doc. 49-1 at 3.) Further, Defendant contends the Court can decide the 11 pending summary judgment motion without additional discovery. (Id.) Defendant also contends 12 requiring the parties to respond to discovery requests before a decision on the summary judgment 13 motion is issued would be a waste of resources. (Id.)2 In the event the summary judgment motion 14 is denied, discovery on the remaining issues could resume. (Id.) 15 The Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery. Millner v. Biter, No. 1:13- 16 CV-02029-SAB, 2015 WL 4167386, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2015) (citing Dichter-Mad Family 17 Partners, LLP v. U.S., 709 F.3d 749, 751 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. 18 Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th 19 Cir. 2002)). The avoidance of undue burden or expense is grounds for the issuance of a protective 20 order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Additionally, a stay of discovery pending resolution of potentially 21 dispositive issues furthers the goal of efficiency for the courts and the litigants. Little v. City of 22 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988) (stay of discovery pending resolution of immunity 23 issue). The propriety of delaying discovery on the merits of Plaintiff's claims pending resolution 24 of an exhaustion motion was explicitly recognized by the Ninth Circuit. See Milliner, 2015 WL 25 26 docket until a determination can be made by the Court. 27 2 Defendant will respond to written discovery propounded by Plaintiff prior to the filing of the summary judgment motion. The response to Plaintiff’s interrogatories is due May 26, 2022, and the response to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents is due June 4, 2022. (See Doc. 49-2 at 2, ¶¶ 2-3 1 4167386, at *1 (citing Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170–71 (9th Cir. 2014)) (en banc); see 2 also Gibbs v. Carson, No. C–13–0860 THE (PR), 2014 WL 172187, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 3 2014). 4 The two-part test for evaluating a request for a stay of discovery due to a pending motion 5 considers: (1) whether “the pending motion must be potentially dispositive of the entire case, or at 6 least dispositive on the issue at which discovery is aimed;” and (2) whether “the pending 7 potentially dispositive motion can be decided absent additional discovery.” Mlejnecky v. Olympus 8 Imaging Am., Inc., No. 2:10-cv-02630-JAM-KJN, 2011 WL 489743, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 9 2011) (citations omitted). If the moving party satisfies these two prongs, the Court may issue a 10 protective order staying discovery. See, e.g., Millner, 2015 WL 4167386, at *1 (staying all merits- 11 based discovery pending resolution of Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the issue of 12 exhaustion). 13 Here, Defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment is potentially dispositive of the 14 entire case and can be decided absent additional discovery. 15 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 16 The Court finds good cause to impose a stay on merits-based discovery in this action, 17 except for Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s previously propounded written discovery (see fn. 18 2), pending resolution of the motion for summary judgment. It would be an efficient use of the 19 Court's and the parties’ resources to address exhaustion issues before reaching the merits of the 20 case. Moreover, the Court finds such a stay would not prejudice Plaintiff. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. Defendant’s motion to stay discovery (Doc. 49)—with the exception of 23 Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s previously propounded written discovery to 24 which Defendant must respond—is GRANTED; 25 2. The completion of all discovery and filing of pretrial dispositive motion deadlines 26 referenced in the March 24, 2022, order are VACATED; 27 // 1 3. Once the motion for summary judgment has been determined, if appropriate, the 2 Court will lift the stay of discovery and impose new deadlines. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: May 11, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27