(PC) McCoy-Gordon v. Hernandez

Opinion

Case No. 2:19-cv-1586 JAM KJN P DeMARREA McCOY-GORDON, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO Plaintiff, MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER AND STAYING DISCOVERY v.

HERNANDEZ, Defendant. Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. On March 4, 2020, defendant filed an ex parte1 application for continuance and resetting of the discovery deadline and dispositive motion deadline, and also sought a protective order staying discovery due to the pendency of defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on plaintiff’s alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing this action. //// 1 Although defendant’s counsel moves ex parte, counsel declares that he spoke with plaintiff by telephone on March 3, 2020, and informed plaintiff that defendant’s counsel would be moving to modify the scheduling order and stay discovery pending a ruling on the dispositive motion. (ECF No. 29 at 5.) In response to counsel’s question about plaintiff’s position on the matter, defendant’s counsel declares that plaintiff “informed [counsel] that [plaintiff] was alright with it and was not opposed to such.” (Id.) “The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendant’s ex parte application (ECF No. 29) is granted; 2. Defendant’s motion for protective order (ECF No. 30) is granted; 3. Discovery is stayed pending resolution of defendant’s motion for summary judgment; and 4. The May 22, 2020 discovery and August 7, 2020 pretrial motions deadlines are vacated, and will be reset following resolution of defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Il | Dated: March 10, 2020 A Abar mscotstoay UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE