Case Information
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STEPHEN STOWERS, No. 2:18-cv-2177 DB P Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
HARBAKO,
Defendant.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. He alleges defendant was deliberately indifferent to his serious lip disease in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On September 5, 2019, this court issued a discovery and scheduling order which set a deadline of December 27, 2019 for all discovery and a deadline of March 20, 2020 for any pretrial motions. (ECF No. 28.) On December 2, 2019, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit. (ECF No. 29.) Since then, this court granted plaintiff’s motions for continuances of the discovery and pretrial motions deadlines, for an extension of time to respond to defendant’s discovery requests, and for an extension of time to file an opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 31, 39.) In addition, this court granted defendant several extensions of time to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests. (ECF Nos. 33, 35, 37.) Defendant has provided plaintiff with responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests. (See ECF No. 40-2.)
Currently before the court are defendant’s motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 40) and plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to respond to defendant’s discovery requests (ECF No. 41). In his motion to stay, defendant points to discovery disputes between the parties that will likely require resolution by the court. Those discovery disputes do not appear to involve the subject of defendant’s motion for summary judgment. [1] Defendant argues that a stay of discovery will conserve both judicial resources and potentially unnecessary effort by both parties. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.
This court agrees there is good cause for a stay of discovery. If defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, further discovery will be unnecessary. If defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied, this court will set new deadlines for the parties to complete discovery and file any further pretrial motions.
Based on this court’s decision to stay discovery, plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to respond to defendant’s discovery requests is moot. If defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied, discovery may resume and this court will set a new deadline for plaintiff to respond to defendant’s discovery requests. In the meantime, plaintiff is reminded that his opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment is due on May 15, 2020. (See Jan. 8, 2020 Order (ECF No. 31).)
For the foregoing reasons, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendant’s motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 40) is granted.
/////
/////
/////
/////
/////
2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to respond to defendant’s discovery requests (ECF No. 41) is denied as moot.
Dated: May 2, 2020
DLB:9 DB/prisoner-civil rights/stow2177.stay disco
[1] However, if plaintiff has outstanding discovery issues that relate to the subject of defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the exhaustion of his administrative remedies, he should so notify the court.