Thomas v. Hopf

W.D. Washington

Thomas v. Hopf

DecidedMay 8, 2020

Docket2:19-cv-01766

StatusUnknown

This text of Thomas v. Hopf (Thomas v. Hopf) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thomas v. Hopf, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 KENNETH THOMAS JR, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C19-1766-JCC-MLP 10 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY 11 CORRECTIONS OFFICER HOPF, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 Currently before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of 15 his motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. # 23.) Defendant seeks summary judgment based on 16 Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation 17 Reform Act. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to either the motion to stay or the motion for 18 summary judgment. 19 The court has broad discretionary powers to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 20 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Upon showing of good cause, the court may deny or limit 21 discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). A court may relieve a party of the burdens of discovery while a 22 dispositive motion is pending. DiMartini v. Ferrin, 889 F.2d 922 (9th Cir. 1989), amended at 23 906 F.2d 465 (9th Cir. 1990); Rae v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1984). Summary 1 judgment is generally disfavored where relevant evidence remains to be discovered. Taylor v. 2 Sentry Life Ins., 729 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1984) (per curiam). The burden is on the nonmoving 3 party, however, to show what material facts would be discovered that would preclude summary 4 judgment. Hall v. Hawaii, 791 F.2d 759, 761 (9th Cir. 1986).

5 As Plaintiff has not opposed either Defendant’s motion to stay discovery or Defendant’s 6 motion for summary judgment, he has not shown there are undiscovered material facts that 7 would preclude summary judgment. Given that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is 8 limited to the issue of administrative exhaustion and would dispose of the case if granted, the 9 Court finds good cause to GRANT the motion to stay (dkt. # 23) and to STAY further discovery 10 until further order of the Court. 11 The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to the parties and to the Honorable John 12 C. Coughenour. 13 Dated this 8th day of May, 2020. 14 A 15 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 KENNETH THOMAS JR, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C19-1766-JCC-MLP 10 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY 11 CORRECTIONS OFFICER HOPF, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 Currently before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of 15 his motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. # 23.) Defendant seeks summary judgment based on 16 Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation 17 Reform Act. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to either the motion to stay or the motion for 18 summary judgment. 19 The court has broad discretionary powers to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 20 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Upon showing of good cause, the court may deny or limit 21 discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). A court may relieve a party of the burdens of discovery while a 22 dispositive motion is pending. DiMartini v. Ferrin, 889 F.2d 922 (9th Cir. 1989), amended at 23 906 F.2d 465 (9th Cir. 1990); Rae v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1984). Summary 1 judgment is generally disfavored where relevant evidence remains to be discovered. Taylor v. 2 Sentry Life Ins., 729 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1984) (per curiam). The burden is on the nonmoving 3 party, however, to show what material facts would be discovered that would preclude summary 4 judgment. Hall v. Hawaii, 791 F.2d 759, 761 (9th Cir. 1986).

5 As Plaintiff has not opposed either Defendant’s motion to stay discovery or Defendant’s 6 motion for summary judgment, he has not shown there are undiscovered material facts that 7 would preclude summary judgment. Given that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is 8 limited to the issue of administrative exhaustion and would dispose of the case if granted, the 9 Court finds good cause to GRANT the motion to stay (dkt. # 23) and to STAY further discovery 10 until further order of the Court. 11 The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to the parties and to the Honorable John 12 C. Coughenour. 13 Dated this 8th day of May, 2020. 14 A 15 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Thomas v. Hopf, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-hopf-wawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack