Opinion
Case No. 08-5553 RJB/KLS.
April 6, 2009
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
Before the Court is Defendants' motion to stay discovery pending the Court's resolution of Defendants' motion to dismiss. Dkt. # 14. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that the motion should be granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff John Barnhouse filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that on August 31, 2006, Defendants used excessive force against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Dkt. # 4. Presently pending before the Court is the motion to dismiss of Defendants Eric Young, Michael Christensen and Jeff Kettel. Dkt. # 14. Defendants argue that Mr. Barnhouse's complaint must be dismissed because he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Id., p. 2.
DISCUSSION
The court has broad discretionary powers to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Upon showing of good cause, the court may deny or limit discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). A court may relieve a party of the burdens of discovery while a dispositive motion is pending. DiMartini v. Ferrin, 889 F.2d 922 (9th Cir. 1989), amended at 906 F.2d 465 (9th Cir. 1990) Rae v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1984).
The Court finds that a stay is warranted while the Court determines the threshold issue of whether Mr. Barnhouse has exhausted his administrative remedies. If the evidence reflects that Mr. Barnhouse has not exhausted his administrative remedies, his claims must be dismissed without prejudice. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, discovery at this juncture would be unnecessary and burdensome on the Defendants.
Accordingly, all discovery in this matter shall be STAYED pending further order of this Court.