Bealer v. R. Brannum

Full title: ANTOINE BEALER, Plaintiff, v. R. BRANNUM, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 23, 2015

1:12-cv-01516-AWI-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Sep. 23, 2015)

Opinion

1:12-cv-01516-AWI-GSA-PC

09-23-2015

ANTOINE BEALER, Plaintiff, v. R. BRANNUM, et al., Defendants.

Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
(ECF Nos. 52, 60.)

I. BACKGROUND

Antoine Bealer ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on September 14, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds on the Fourth Amended Complaint filed on March 28, 2014, against defendants Rios and Brannum ("Defendants") for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 21.) This case is presently in the discovery phase, pursuant to the court's scheduling order of March 2, 2015. (ECF No. 45.) On April 13, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which is pending.¹ (ECF No. 48.)

1 On September 16, 2015, the court entered findings and recommendations, recommending that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be denied. (ECF No. 94.) The parties were granted thirty days in which to file objections. (Id.) To date, no objections have been filed. --------

On May 8, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests, and on May 22, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for a protective order. (ECF No. 52, 60.) Defendants' motions are now before the court.

II. DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS

Defendants request an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests until after the court rules on Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants argue that the extension should be granted because their motion for summary judgment is potentially dispositive of all of Plaintiff's claims against Defendants and, if granted in full, could dismiss the entire case, which would obviate the necessity for Defendants to provide responses to Plaintiff's discovery. (Sloan Decl., ECF No. 52 at 2 ¶5.)

Defendants also request a protective order to stay all discovery in this matter until the court rules on Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants assert that Plaintiff has requested to take depositions of Defendants, propounded requests for production, and propounded interrogatories for all Defendants, and until the court rules on the motion for summary judgment, Defendants are unable to determine the permissible scope of discovery.

At this juncture, findings and recommendations have been entered to deny Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Thus, the court's ruling on the motion for summary judgment may not dismiss the case, and discovery would continue as scheduled. In light of the court's anticipated ruling, the court finds no good cause at this stage of the proceedings to grant Defendants an extension of time to participate in discovery or a protective order to stay discovery. Accordingly, the motions shall be denied.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' motion for extension of time, filed on May 8, 2015, is DENIED; and

2. Defendants' motion for a protective order, filed on May 22, 2015, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23 , 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE