Joseph Martin Norton, III v. William Hutchingson

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 11, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00611
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 Joseph Martin Norton, III, 5 Case No. 2:23-cv-00611-RFB-MDC

6 Plaintiff(s), ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY vs. DISCOVERY (ECF NO. 67); ORDER 7 GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME William Hutchingson, (ECF NO. 68) 8 Defendant(s).

10 Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Discovery1 (ECF No. 67) and a Motion to Extend Time (ECF 11 No. 68). The Court DENIES the Motion to Stay Discovery. The Court GRANTS the Motion to Extend 12 Time. The defendants have until January 10, 2026 to comply with the Court’s previous Order, 13 including supplying plaintiff with paper copies of his medical records and filing a notice of compliance 14 on the docket. ECF No. 62. The Court also extends the pro se plaintiff’s deadline to file his amended 15 16 complaint to February 23, 2026. The Court also enters a separate discovery plan and scheduling Order 17 simultaneously with this Order. 18 I. MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY 19 This is a prisoner civil rights case. The Court held a hearing and denied the defendants’ motion 20 to dismiss (ECF No. 62), but the defendants have filed a motion to reconsider the denial, which is 21 pending (ECF No. 63). Defendants argue that the Court should stay discovery pending the resolution of 22 the motion for reconsideration. 23 The Court finds staying discovery is inappropriate in this case. Federal courts have the “power 24 25 1 The defendants erroneously titled the motion as a Motion to Stay Case, but the content of the motion pertains to staying discovery. to stay proceedings [it] is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the 1 causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. 2 N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “The district court has wide discretion in controlling 3 4 discovery[.]” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011) (citing Little v. City of 5 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)). When considering a motion to stay discovery while a 6 dispositive motion is pending, “this court considers the goal of Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil 7 Procedure which directs that the Rules shall ‘be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, 8 and inexpensive determination of every action.’” Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 1). The Court may consider staying discovery pursuant to its inherent powers and discretion, together 10 with the goals pronounced by Rule 1. The undersigned Magistrate Judge previously adopted the 11 pragmatic approach when considering motions to stay discovery because a dispositive motion is 12 pending. Aristocrat Techs., Inc. v. Light & Wonder, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-00382-GMN-MDC, 2024 WL 13 2302151, at *2 (D. Nev. May 21, 2024). The pragmatic approach considers only the following two 14 elements: (1) if the dispositive motion can be decided without further discovery; and (2) good cause 15 exists to stay discovery. Id. 16 17 While the motion for reconsideration is potentially dispositive and can be decided without 18 discovery, good cause does not exist to stay discovery at this time. Plaintiff filed this case almost three 19 years ago and the Court already resolved the defendants’ motion to dismiss. While the Court has the 20 inherent power to reconsider its prior order, see, e.g., City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica 21 BayKeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001), motions for reconsideration are disfavored, Japan Cash 22 Mach. Co. v. Mei, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 98778, *7 (D. Nev. Nov. 20, 2008). As with any motion to 23 stay discovery, the Court is guided by the goals of Rule 1 for the "just, speedy, and inexpensive" 24 determination of actions. See FRCP 1. Given the length of time that this case has been pending and that 25 motions for reconsideration are disfavored, the Court finds that staying discovery will further 1 unnecessarily delay this case. 2 Defendants argue that a stay of discovery is automatic under Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 3 4 116 S. Ct. 834 (1996), because they have asserted qualified immunity, which must be resolved first 5 before discovery may proceed. ECF No. 67. The Court does not agree with defendants’ broad 6 interpretation of Behrens, nor does the procedural posture of this case support defendants’ argument. 7 The issue in Behrens concerned whether interlocutory orders denying qualified immunity are 8 appealable. Id., 516 U.S. at 305, 116 S. Ct. at 838 (“The issue in the present case is the extent to which 9 orders denying governmental officers' assertions of qualified immunity come within the… category of 10 appealable decisions). While defendants offer authorities that have determined that an interlocutory 11 appeal of an order denying qualified immunity divests the district court of jurisdiction and thus, 12 effectively stays or halts discovery,2 those circumstances are not present here. Defendants have not 13 appealed an order denying their qualified immunity defense and this Court has not been divested of 14 jurisdiction. 15 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Stay Discovery is denied. 16 17 II. MOTION TO EXTEND TIME 18 The defendants ask in the alternative for an additional thirty days to comply with the Court’s 19 Order. EFC No. 68 citing to ECF No. 62. The Court ordered the defendants in part to supply the plaintiff 20 with a paper copy of his medical records, and file a notice of compliance with the Court, within thirty 21 days. ECF No. 62. The Court also ordered the pro se plaintiff to file an amended complaint within sixty 22 23

24 2 See e.g., ECF No. 67 at 2, citing Andrade Rico v. Beard, Case No. 2:17-CV-1402-KJM-DBP, 2019 WL 4127206, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2019). 25 days, presumably to give plaintiff time to review his medical records prior to filing his amended

5 complaint. Plaintiff has presumably not been able to comply with the Court’s Order because the

3 || defendants have not yet complied with the Court’s Order. In the interest of moving this case forward and 4 || finding good cause exists, the Court grants the Motion to Extend Time. 5 IT IS ORDERED that: 6 1. Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 67) is DENIED. 7 2. Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time (ECF No. 68) is GRANTED. 8 a. The defendants have until January 10, 2026, to comply with the Court’s previous 9 Order, including supplying plaintiff with paper copies of his medical records and 10 filing a notice of compliance on the docket. ECF No. 62. 11 b. Plaintiff until February 23, 2026, to file his amended complaint. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. _ Aff DP - a iF 4 Dated December 11, 2025 Zé Pn,

1S , ff Hon. Maxim#vino DiCoui €r Ill 16 L United Stayz Magis ate lege 17 NOTICE 18 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 19 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk

of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 39 || may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 23 || time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file 24 || objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues 25

waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the 1 District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. 2 Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file 3 4 written notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of 5 service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by 6 counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25