(PC) Lear v. Navarro ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR, Case No. 1:21-cv-00600-DAD-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY MERITS-BASED 13 v. DISCOVERY 14 NAVARRO, et al., (ECF No. 66) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Roderick William Lear (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma 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 Navarro, Neve, Allison, and Plata for 20 excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, arising from the incident on January 4, 21 2020. Defendants Navarro, Neve, and Allison have answered the complaint. Defendant Plata has 22 not yet been served. 23 On May 13, 2022, Defendants Navarro, Neve, and Allison filed a motion for summary 24 judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before 25 bringing this action, (ECF No. 65), together with a motion to stay merits-based discovery pending 26 resolution of their motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion of administrative 27 remedies, (ECF No. 66). Pursuant to the Court’s February 10, 2022 Discovery and Scheduling 28 Order, the deadline for the completion of all discovery is October 10, 2022. (ECF No. 43.) 1 Although Plaintiff has not had the opportunity to file a response to Defendants’ motion to 2 stay merits-based discovery, the Court finds a response unnecessary. The motion is deemed 3 submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 4 Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and 5 with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily 6 considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 7 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot 8 reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was 9 not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id. 10 In their motion, Defendants Navarro, Neve, and Allison argue that the pending motion for 11 summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies will potentially dispose of the 12 entire case, the Court does not require additional information to decide the motion, and the 13 expenditure of resources required to respond to merits-based discovery requests will be needless 14 if the Court grants Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 66.) If Defendants’ motion is denied, the 15 parties may conduct discovery as to all remaining issues, having only suffered a brief delay. 16 Defendants therefore request that the Court stay merits-based discovery until the motion for 17 summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion is resolved. (Id.) 18 Having considered Defendants’ moving papers, the Court finds good cause to stay merits- 19 based discovery. Defendants have been diligent in filing the dispositive motion, and it would be a 20 waste of the resources of the Court and the parties to require the preparation of potentially 21 unnecessary merits-based discovery. 22 However, to the extent Plaintiff has served discovery requests relating to the issue of 23 exhaustion of administrative remedies, Defendants are not relieved of their existing 24 obligation to timely respond to those requests. Given that Plaintiff has not had the opportunity 25 to respond to Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order, the Court finds it 26 appropriate to require Defendants to complete any outstanding discovery requests related to the 27 exhaustion issue, as required by the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order. Although 28 Defendants argue that no further information is needed for the Court to decide the exhaustion 1 motion, Plaintiff may well disagree. 2 Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the relief requested, as the 3 Court will reset the applicable deadline, if necessary, following a ruling on the pending motion. 4 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 5 1. Defendants’ motion to stay merits-based discovery, (ECF No. 66), is GRANTED; and 6 2. All merits-based discovery is STAYED, as discussed above, pending resolution of the 7 motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: May 16, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28