(PC) Harris v. Burnes

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 11, 2023
• Docket: 1:19-cv-01409
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 DARREN L. HARRIS, 1:19-cv-01409-JLT-GSA-PC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

13 vs. MOTION TO STAY MERITS-BASED DISCOVERY AND VACATE DEADLINES 14 BURNES, et al., IN THE SCHEDULING ORDER

15 Defendants. (ECF No. 75.)

16 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Darren L. Harris (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 20 with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 On June 28, 2022, the Court ordered that this case proceed on Plaintiff’s First Amended 22 Complaint against Defendants C/O J. Flores, C/O J. Alejo, and Sergeant Burnes (“Defendants”) 23 for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and dismissed all other claims 24 based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 52.) 25 On January 3, 2023, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order opening 26 discovery and establishing a deadline of May 3, 2023 to file exhaustion motions, a deadline of 27 July 3, 2023 to conduct discovery, and a deadline of September 3, 2023 to file dispositive 28 motions. (ECF No. 68.) 1 On March 3, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to 2 Defendants’ exhaustion-based discovery requests. (ECF No. 71.) On April 24, 2023, Plaintiff 3 filed an objection to the motion. (ECF No. 74.) Defendants’ deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s 4 objections to the motion to compel is May 22, 2023. (ECF No. 78.) Thus, the motion to compel 5 is pending but not fully briefed. Local Rule 230(l). 6 On April 26, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to stay merits-based discovery and vacate 7 the deadlines in the Discovery and Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 75.) Plaintiff has not filed an 8 opposition. Defendants’ motion is now before the Court. Local Rule 230(l). 9 II. MOTION TO STAY MERITS-BASED DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION 10 OF EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES ISSUE 11 The Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery. Millner v. Biter, No. 12 1:13-CV-02029-SAB, 2015 WL 4167386, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2015) (citing Dichter–Mad 13 Family Partners, LLP v. U.S., 709 F.3d 749, 751 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam), cert. denied, ––– 14 U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 117, 187 L.Ed.2d 36 (2013); Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 15 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir.2005); 16 Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)). Pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1), the Court may, 17 for good cause, issue a protective order forbidding or limiting discovery. Millner, 2015 WL 18 4167386, at *1. The avoidance of undue burden or expense is grounds for the issuance of a 19 protective order, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), and a stay of discovery pending resolution of potentially 20 dispositive issues furthers the goal of efficiency for the courts and the litigants, Little v. City of 21 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988) (stay of discovery pending resolution of immunity 22 issue). The propriety of delaying discovery on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims pending resolution 23 of an exhaustion motion was explicitly recognized by the Ninth Circuit. Id. (citing Albino v. 24 Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170–71 (9th Cir. 2014)) (en banc), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 25 403, 190 L.Ed.2d 307 (2014); see also Gibbs v. Carson, No. C–13–0860 THE (PR), 2014 WL 26 172187, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2014)). 27 The two-part test for evaluating a request for a stay of discovery due to a pending motion 28 considers: (1) whether “the pending motion must be potentially dispositive of the entire case, or 1 at least dispositive on the issue at which discovery is aimed;” and (2) whether “the pending 2 potentially dispositive motion can be decided absent additional discovery.” Mlejnecky v. 3 Olympus Imaging Am., Inc., No. 2:10-cv-02630-JAM-KJN, 2011 WL 489743, at *6 (E.D. Cal. 4 Feb. 7, 2011) (citations omitted). If the moving party satisfies these two prongs, the court may 5 issue a protective order staying discovery. Id.; see e.g., Millner, 2015 WL 4167386, at *1 6 (staying all merits-based discovery pending resolution of Defendant’s motion for summary 7 judgment on the issue of exhaustion). 8 A. Defendants’ Motion to Stay 9 Defendants request the court to stay merits-based discovery pending (1) resolution of 10 Defendants’ motion to compel and, (2) Plaintiff’s compliance with any Court orders on 11 Defendants’ motion to compel, including, but not limited to, proper responses to Defendants’ 12 discovery requests and payment of any sanctions. Defendants request that after Plaintiff complies 13 with any Court orders on Defendants’ motion to compel, the Court re-set the exhaustion-based 14 motions filing deadline but maintain a stay on merits-based discovery, including that which has 15 already been propounded. 16 Defendants ask that upon a final ruling on Defendants’ exhaustion-based motion for 17 summary judgment, the Court issue a further scheduling order as necessary, allowing 45-days 18 for Defendants to respond to any merits-based discovery Plaintiff served in the interim, including 19 that which has already been served as of the filing of this motion. Defendants bring this motion 20 on the grounds that: (1) Defendants’ motion to compel is presently pending before the Court due 21 to Plaintiff’s failure to properly respond to exhaustion-based discovery requests; (2) Defendants’ 22 administrative motion for an extension of time in which to respond to Plaintiff’s late-received 23 merits-based discovery is presently pending before the Court;1 (3) Plaintiff failed to exhaust 24 available administrative remedies regarding the claims in this case; (4) Plaintiff’s inmate appeal 25 and grievance history is extensive, and Defendants need Plaintiff’s discovery responses in order 26 to streamline their exhaustion-based motion for summary judgment for ease of both the Court 27 28 1 This motion was resolved on May 5, 2023, after Defendants filed the instant motion on April 26, 2023. (ECF No. 77.) 1 and the parties; and (5) the expenditure of resources required to conduct merits-based discovery 2 and motions will be needless if the Court grants Defendants’ exhaustion-based motion. 3 Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants’ exhaustion-based 4 discovery has hindered their ability to file a streamlined exhaustion-based motion for summary 5 judgment, and Defendants’ exhaustion motion could dispose of Plaintiff’s entire case. 6 Defendants contend that it would be a waste of resources to require merits-based discovery before 7 the exhaustion-based discovery issues are resolved and the exhaustion motion is decided. 8 Defendants request that all merits-based discovery Plaintiff has already served on Defendants, or 9 continue to serve, be held in abeyance until 45 days after the Court issues a final ruling on 10 Defendants’ exhaustion motion. 11 Discussion 12 The court finds good cause to impose a stay on merits-based discovery in this action for 13 all parties pending resolution of Defendants’ expected motion for summary judgment based on 14 exhaustion. It would be an efficient use of the court’s and the parties’ resources to address 15 exhaustion issues before reaching the merits of the case. Moreover, a stay of merits-based 16 discovery does not prevent the parties from conducting any further discovery that may be needed 17 to address the exhaustion issue. Plaintiff has not opposed Defendants’ motion for stay and the 18 court finds that the stay granted here will not result in prejudice to Plaintiff. The Court shall stay 19 all merits-based discovery – serving merits-based discovery or responding to merits-based 20 discovery – until resolution of Defendants’ expected motion for exhaustion-based summary 21 judgment. 22 III. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 23 Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 25 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 26 modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 27 diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the 28 prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling 1 order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion 2 to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 3 A. Defendants’ Motion to Modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order 4 Defendants request the Court to vacate the discovery, exhaustion, and dispositive motion 5 deadlines in the Discovery and Scheduling Order, and reset them as needed. Defendants contend 6 that the Court needs time to resolve Defendants’ pending motion to compel. Defendants assert 7 that they were diligent in serving exhaustion-based discovery early and in timely filing a motion 8 to compel. Defendants argue that good cause exists to vacate the court’s deadlines because it 9 will avoid the expenditure of resources by the parties in conducting discovery and filing motions 10 concerning the merits of the case. Defendants also argue that there is “an immediate and clear 11 possibility” that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will dispose of the case. 12 Discussion 13 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause to modify the Discovery and 14 Scheduling Order. Defendants have shown that even with the exercise of due diligence they 15 cannot meet the requirements of the Court’s order. 16 The Court shall vacate the deadlines in the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order filed 17 on January 23, 2023 (ECF No. 68.) After Defendants’ motion to compel is resolved, the Court 18 shall re-set the deadline to file exhaustion motions. After resolution of the exhaustion of remedies 19 issues in this case, the Court shall issue a new scheduling order, if needed. 20 III. CONCLUSION 21 Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. Defendants’ motion to stay merits-based discovery and vacate the deadlines in the 23 Discovery and Scheduling Order filed on April 26, 2023, is GRANTED; 24 2. The deadlines in the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 68) for 25 (1) filing exhaustion motions, (2) conducting discovery, and (3) filing non- 26 exhaustion dispositive motions are VACATED pending further order of the 27 Court; 28 /// 1 3. The deadline for filing exhaustion motions shall be re-set by the Court upon 2 resolution of Defendants’ motion to compel and Plaintiff’s compliance with any 3 associated orders; 4 4. All merits-based discovery is STAYED pending the Court’s ruling on 5 Defendants’ expected motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion. 6 Discovery concerning Plaintiff’s exhaustion of remedies shall continue to 7 proceed, but all merits-based discovery is stayed pending the resolution of 8 Defendants’ expected motion for summary judgment. No merits-based discovery 9 shall be conducted by any party – serving discovery requests or responding to 10 discovery requests -- pending further order of the Court; and 11 5. The Court shall issue a new scheduling order upon resolution of the exhaustion of 12 remedies issues, if needed. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14

15 Dated: May 10, 2023 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28