(PC) Murphy v. Pierce ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SACRAMENTO DIVISION 11 12 MONRELL D. MURPHY, Case No. 2:21-cv-01789-KJN 13 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 14 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY v. DISCOVERY 15 Judge: Hon. Kendall J. Newman 16 C. PIERCE, et al., Trial Date: None Set Action Filed: September 28, 2021 17 Defendants. 18 19 Defendants C. Pierce and J. Lebeck filed a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of 20 their motion to dismiss based on Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480 (1994), and Edwards v. 21 Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643 (1997). As set forth below, the undersigned grants defendants’ 22 motion to stay discovery. 23 Legal Standard 24 A party may seek a protective order that stays discovery pending resolution of a dispositive 25 motion such as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21(b)(6). Wenger 26 v. Monroe, 282 F.3d 1068, 1077 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming district court’s grant of protective 27 order staying discovery pending resolution of motion to dismiss). Federal Rule of Civil 28 Procedure 26 states “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person 1 from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including forbidding 2 discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The party seeking a protective order has the burden “to 3 ‘show good cause’ by demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the discovery.” 4 Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). 5 “[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not provide for automatic or blanket stays of 6 discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Mlejnecky v. Olympus Imaging 7 Am. Inc., 2011 WL 489743, at *6 (E.D. Cal. 2011). District courts do not favor blanket stays of 8 discovery because “delaying or prolonging discovery can create unnecessary litigation expenses 9 and case management problems.” Salazar v. Honest Tea, Inc., 2015 WL 6537813, at *1 (E.D. 10 Cal. 2015) (citing Simpson v. Specialty Retail Concepts, Inc., 121 F.R.D. 261, 263 (M.D. N.C. 11 1988)). When evaluating a motion to stay, district courts “inevitably must balance the harm 12 produced by a delay in discovery against the possibility that the motion will be granted and 13 entirely eliminate the need for such discovery.” Simpson, 121 F.R.D. at 263. 14 District courts in the Ninth Circuit often apply a two-pronged test to decide whether to stay 15 discovery. Mlejnecky, 2011 WL 4889743, at *6; Seven Springs Ltd. P’ship v. Fox Capital 16 Mgmt. Corp., 2007 WL 1146607, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2007). The first prong requires that the 17 pending motion “be potentially dispositive of the entire case, or at least dispositive on the issue at 18 which discovery is aimed.” Id. The second prong requires the court to “determine whether the 19 pending, potentially dispositive motion can be decided absent additional discovery.” Id. If either 20 prong is not met, discovery should proceed. Id. 21 Discussion 22 After reviewing the motion and documents in support, as well as plaintiff’s opposition and 23 reply, the Court finds good cause to grant the motion to stay discovery. In their motion to 24 dismiss, defendants contend that all of plaintiff’s claims are barred by Heck. If defendants’ 25 motion is granted, it could dispose of the entire case. If the court finds that all of plaintiff’s 26 claims are barred by Heck, the case would be dismissed without prejudice. Moreover, the 27 undersigned has reviewed defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiff’s opposition, and defendants’ 28 reply, and finds the pending motion to dismiss can be decided without discovery. Indeed, 1 | plaintiff does not argue or otherwise demonstrate that discovery is necessary to decide the 2 || potentially dispositive motion. In addition, even if only some portion of defendants’ motion to 3 || dismiss is granted, discovery as to any dismissed portion would be unnecessary. Therefore, the 4 || undersigned exercises his discretion to stay discovery pending resolution of defendants’ motion to 5 || dismiss. Once defendants’ motion to dismiss 1s resolved, the court will, if appropriate, issue a 6 || discovery and scheduling order. Until that time, all discovery is stayed pending the district 7 || court’s ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss. 8 In light of this order, plaintiff's motion to compel discovery is denied without prejudice to 9 || renewal following resolution of defendants’ motion to dismiss. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Defendants’ motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 22) is granted; 12 2. Discovery is stayed pending resolution of defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff's 13 || complaint; and 14 3. Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No 29) is denied without prejudice. 15 | Dated: June 13, 2022 6 Aectl Aharon 17 KENDALL J. NE ig /murp1789.sty.dsc UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28