1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 CHRISTOPHER DICKSON, ) Case No.: 1:17-cv-00294-DAD-BAM (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION ) FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 v. ) (ECF No. 38)
14 G. GOMEZ, et al. ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ) EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO 15 Defendants. ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY ) JUDGMENT 16 ) (ECF No. 42) ) 17 ) THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE ) 18
19 Plaintiff Christopher Dickson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 20 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 I. Introduction 22 This action currently proceeds on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint for excessive force 23 against Defendants Gomez, Rios, and Martinez, for violations of Plaintiff’s due process rights against 24 Defendants Duncan and Esparza, and for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against 25 Defendant Sao. (ECF No. 23.) 26 On September 10, 2019, Defendants Duncan, Esparza, Gomez, Martinez, Rios, and Sao filed 27 an answer to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. (ECF No. 32.) 28 On October 10, 2019, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 36.) 1 On December 3, 2019, Defendants Duncan, Esparza, Gomez, Martinez, Rios, and Sao filed a 2 motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 37.) 3 Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ summary judgment motion was due on or before December 27, 4 2019. 5 Also, on December 3, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for a protective order to stay all 6 currently propounded and future discovery in this matter until the Court decides Defendants’ motion 7 for summary judgment. (ECF No. 38.) On December 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed his opposition to 8 Defendants’ motion for protective order. (ECF No. 43.) No reply has been filed, and the time in 9 which to do so has lapsed. 10 On December 23, 2019, Plaintiff also filed a motion for an extension of time to file a response 11 to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 42.) On January 2, 2020, Defendants filed 12 an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time. (ECF No. 44.) Although Plaintiff has not 13 had an opportunity to file a reply, the Court finds that a reply is unnecessary. 14 Therefore, both Defendants’ motion for protective order and Plaintiff’s motion for an extension 15 of time to file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment are deemed submitted. Local 16 Rule 230(l). 17 II. Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order 18 The Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery. Dichter-Mad Family Partners, 19 LLP v. U.S., 709 F.3d 749, 751 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam); Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 20 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); 21 Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 26(c)(1), the Court may, for good cause, issue a protective order forbidding or limiting discovery. The 23 avoidance of undue burden or expense is grounds for the issuance of a protective order, Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 26(c), and a stay of discovery pending resolution of potentially dispositive issues furthers the goal of 25 efficiency for the courts and the litigants, Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988) 26 (stay of discovery pending resolution of immunity issue). The propriety of delaying discovery on the 27 merits of the plaintiff’s claims pending resolution of an exhaustion-based summary judgment motion 28 was explicitly recognized by the Ninth Circuit. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 1 2014) (en banc); see also Gibbs v. Carson, No. C-13-0860 THE (PR), 2014 WL 172187, at *2-3 (N.D. 2 Cal. Jan. 15, 2014). 3 Here, Defendants move for a protective order staying all discovery in this matter, including 4 discovery that has already been propounded, until the Court rules on Defendants’ pending motion for 5 summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 38.) 6 The failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit is an affirmative defense, and 7 Defendants are entitled to judgment on Plaintiff’s claims against them if the Court determines that 8 Plaintiff’s claims were unexhausted when Plaintiff filed suit. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166. Thus, 9 Defendants’ pending exhaustion-based summary judgment motion has the potential to bring final 10 resolution to this action, obviating the need for merits-based discovery. Gibbs, 2014 WL 172187, at 11 *3. In Albino, the Ninth Circuit recognized that “[e]xhaustion should be decided, if feasible, before 12 reaching the merits of a prisoner’s claims,” and “discovery directed to the merits of the suit” should be 13 left until later. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1170. To the extent that Plaintiff needs specific discovery to 14 address the issues raised in Defendants’ exhaustion-based summary judgment motion, then Plaintiff is 15 entitled to obtain exhaustion-related discovery before having to file a response to Defendants’ 16 summary judgment motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d); Albino, 747 F.3d at 1170-71; Wyatt v. Terhune, 17 315 F.3d 1108, 1115 n.7 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds by Albino, 747 F.3d at 1168-69. 18 Indeed, in his opposition, Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ motion for protective order 19 should be denied because he propounded discovery requests on November 4, 2019 in order to be able 20 to defend his claims and complaint against summary judgment and he has not been provided with 21 responses to that propounded discovery. (ECF No. 43.) The Court has reviewed the copies of the 22 discovery requests that Plaintiff propounded on Defendants and provided to the Court as Exhibit A to 23 Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a response to Defendants’ summary judgment 24 motion. (ECF No. 42, Ex. A.) However, after reviewing Plaintiff’s propounded discovery requests, 25 the Court finds that Plaintiff’s propounded discovery requests seek merits-based discovery, not 26 exhaustion-related discovery. Therefore, since Defendants’ summary judgment motion is directed 27 solely to the issue of exhaustion and does not challenge the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, Plaintiff’s 28 merits-based discovery is immaterial and irrelevant to the issue raised in Defendants’ summary 1 judgment motion. Plaintiff will not suffer any actual prejudice if he is required to file a response to 2 Defendants’ summary judgment motion before he receives any responses to his merit-based discovery 3 requests. 4 Additionally, proceeding with merits-based discovery regarding defendants and claims that 5 may be disposed of by the pending exhaustion-based summary judgment will result in unnecessary 6 motion practice, litigation costs, and a waste of judicial resources.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 CHRISTOPHER DICKSON, ) Case No.: 1:17-cv-00294-DAD-BAM (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION ) FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 v. ) (ECF No. 38)
14 G. GOMEZ, et al. ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ) EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO 15 Defendants. ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY ) JUDGMENT 16 ) (ECF No. 42) ) 17 ) THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE ) 18
19 Plaintiff Christopher Dickson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 20 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 I. Introduction 22 This action currently proceeds on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint for excessive force 23 against Defendants Gomez, Rios, and Martinez, for violations of Plaintiff’s due process rights against 24 Defendants Duncan and Esparza, and for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against 25 Defendant Sao. (ECF No. 23.) 26 On September 10, 2019, Defendants Duncan, Esparza, Gomez, Martinez, Rios, and Sao filed 27 an answer to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. (ECF No. 32.) 28 On October 10, 2019, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 36.) 1 On December 3, 2019, Defendants Duncan, Esparza, Gomez, Martinez, Rios, and Sao filed a 2 motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 37.) 3 Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ summary judgment motion was due on or before December 27, 4 2019. 5 Also, on December 3, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for a protective order to stay all 6 currently propounded and future discovery in this matter until the Court decides Defendants’ motion 7 for summary judgment. (ECF No. 38.) On December 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed his opposition to 8 Defendants’ motion for protective order. (ECF No. 43.) No reply has been filed, and the time in 9 which to do so has lapsed. 10 On December 23, 2019, Plaintiff also filed a motion for an extension of time to file a response 11 to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 42.) On January 2, 2020, Defendants filed 12 an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time. (ECF No. 44.) Although Plaintiff has not 13 had an opportunity to file a reply, the Court finds that a reply is unnecessary. 14 Therefore, both Defendants’ motion for protective order and Plaintiff’s motion for an extension 15 of time to file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment are deemed submitted. Local 16 Rule 230(l). 17 II. Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order 18 The Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery. Dichter-Mad Family Partners, 19 LLP v. U.S., 709 F.3d 749, 751 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam); Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 20 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); 21 Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 26(c)(1), the Court may, for good cause, issue a protective order forbidding or limiting discovery. The 23 avoidance of undue burden or expense is grounds for the issuance of a protective order, Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 26(c), and a stay of discovery pending resolution of potentially dispositive issues furthers the goal of 25 efficiency for the courts and the litigants, Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988) 26 (stay of discovery pending resolution of immunity issue). The propriety of delaying discovery on the 27 merits of the plaintiff’s claims pending resolution of an exhaustion-based summary judgment motion 28 was explicitly recognized by the Ninth Circuit. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 1 2014) (en banc); see also Gibbs v. Carson, No. C-13-0860 THE (PR), 2014 WL 172187, at *2-3 (N.D. 2 Cal. Jan. 15, 2014). 3 Here, Defendants move for a protective order staying all discovery in this matter, including 4 discovery that has already been propounded, until the Court rules on Defendants’ pending motion for 5 summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 38.) 6 The failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit is an affirmative defense, and 7 Defendants are entitled to judgment on Plaintiff’s claims against them if the Court determines that 8 Plaintiff’s claims were unexhausted when Plaintiff filed suit. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166. Thus, 9 Defendants’ pending exhaustion-based summary judgment motion has the potential to bring final 10 resolution to this action, obviating the need for merits-based discovery. Gibbs, 2014 WL 172187, at 11 *3. In Albino, the Ninth Circuit recognized that “[e]xhaustion should be decided, if feasible, before 12 reaching the merits of a prisoner’s claims,” and “discovery directed to the merits of the suit” should be 13 left until later. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1170. To the extent that Plaintiff needs specific discovery to 14 address the issues raised in Defendants’ exhaustion-based summary judgment motion, then Plaintiff is 15 entitled to obtain exhaustion-related discovery before having to file a response to Defendants’ 16 summary judgment motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d); Albino, 747 F.3d at 1170-71; Wyatt v. Terhune, 17 315 F.3d 1108, 1115 n.7 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds by Albino, 747 F.3d at 1168-69. 18 Indeed, in his opposition, Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ motion for protective order 19 should be denied because he propounded discovery requests on November 4, 2019 in order to be able 20 to defend his claims and complaint against summary judgment and he has not been provided with 21 responses to that propounded discovery. (ECF No. 43.) The Court has reviewed the copies of the 22 discovery requests that Plaintiff propounded on Defendants and provided to the Court as Exhibit A to 23 Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a response to Defendants’ summary judgment 24 motion. (ECF No. 42, Ex. A.) However, after reviewing Plaintiff’s propounded discovery requests, 25 the Court finds that Plaintiff’s propounded discovery requests seek merits-based discovery, not 26 exhaustion-related discovery. Therefore, since Defendants’ summary judgment motion is directed 27 solely to the issue of exhaustion and does not challenge the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, Plaintiff’s 28 merits-based discovery is immaterial and irrelevant to the issue raised in Defendants’ summary 1 judgment motion. Plaintiff will not suffer any actual prejudice if he is required to file a response to 2 Defendants’ summary judgment motion before he receives any responses to his merit-based discovery 3 requests. 4 Additionally, proceeding with merits-based discovery regarding defendants and claims that 5 may be disposed of by the pending exhaustion-based summary judgment will result in unnecessary 6 motion practice, litigation costs, and a waste of judicial resources. If Defendants do not prevail on 7 their motion, in part or in total, Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by a modest delay in proceeding with 8 merits-based discovery. 9 Therefore, in the absence of any actual prejudice to Plaintiff and good cause having been 10 shown, Defendants’ motion for protective order, (ECF No. 38), is granted. All merits-based discovery 11 is stayed until the Court rules on Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment for failure to 12 exhaust administrative remedies. 13 III. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time 14 Plaintiff moves for an extension of time to file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary 15 judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff asserts that he needs 16 additional time to file a response to Defendants’ summary judgment motion because he has not yet 17 received Defendants’ responses to his propounded discovery requests, and he needs the discovery 18 responses in order to prepare his response. (Id.) On the other hand, Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s 19 motion for an extension of time that would allow Plaintiff to not file a response to their pending 20 motion for summary judgment until after Plaintiff receives Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s merits- 21 based discovery requests. (ECF No. 44.) Defendants do not oppose a reasonable extension of time for 22 Plaintiff to file a response to the pending summary judgment motion that is not based upon the receipt 23 of any discovery responses from Defendants. (Id. at 1-2.) 24 Having considered Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time, the Court finds that Plaintiff has 25 not presented good cause for the requested extension of time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). As discussed 26 above, since Defendants’ summary judgment motion is directed solely to the issue of exhaustion and 27 does not challenge the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, Plaintiff’s merits-based discovery is immaterial and 28 irrelevant to the issue raised in Defendants’ summary judgment motion. Therefore, Plaintiff does not 1 need to receive Defendants’ responses to the propounded merits-based discovery before Plaintiff can 2 file a response to the pending motion for summary judgment. 3 Nevertheless, in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and in order to allow Plaintiff time to receive 4 the Court’s order and file a response to Defendants’ exhaustion-based summary judgment motion, the 5 Court finds it appropriate to grant Plaintiff an extension of time. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for an 6 extension of time, (ECF No. 42), is granted. Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendants’ pending 7 motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies within thirty (30) days 8 after the service of this order. 9 IV. Order 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Defendants’ motion for protective order, (ECF No. 38), is GRANTED; 12 2. All merits-based discovery is stayed until the Court rules on Defendants’ pending 13 motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; 14 3. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file response to Defendants’ motion for 15 summary judgment, (ECF No. 42), is GRANTED; and 16 4. Plaintiff is directed to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 17 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, (ECF No. 37), within thirty (30) days 18 from the date of service of this order. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED.
21 Dated: January 8, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24 25 26 27 28