Calhoun v. Hook

Full title: RICKEY CALHOUN, Plaintiff, v. REGINA HOOK, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Tacoma

Date published: Jul 28, 2009

No. 08-5697 RJB/KLS (W.D. Wash. Jul. 28, 2009)

Opinion

No. 08-5697 RJB/KLS.

July 28, 2009

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

KAREN STROMBOM, Magistrate Judge

Before the Court is Defendants' motion to stay discovery pending the Court's resolution of Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Dkt. 18. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that the motion should be granted.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In his First Amended Complaint, filed on March 25, 2009, Plaintiff alleges that in December 2005, his September 2005 Division of Access and Equal Opportunity Complaint alleging misconduct and abuse was dismissed and the investigator at fault was Regina Hook. Dkt. 9. On June 5, 2009, Plaintiff served numerous discovery requests on Defendant Hook. Dkt. 18, p. 1. On June 17, 2009, Defendant Regina Hook moved for dismissal based on res judicata and on qualified immunity. Dkt. 17. Defendant Hook argues that (1) she previously litigated this matter to a favorable conclusion in state court, (2) even if the prior judgment of dismissal did not exist, Plaintiff Calhoun has failed to state a cause of action under § 1983, and (3) Defendant Hook is entitled to qualified immunity. Id., pp. 2-3.

Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff's discovery motion, asking that the Court command a non-party, the Special Commitment Center to supply materials so that he may take Defendant Hook's deposition. (Dkt. 16)

DISCUSSION

The court has broad discretionary powers to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9^th 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 (9^th Cir. 1989), amended at 906 F.2d 465 (9^th Cir. 1990) Rae v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478 (9^th Cir. 1984).

Given the early stages of this litigation, a stay is warranted while the Court determines the threshold issues of whether Plaintiff's claims are barred by res judicata and/or the doctrine of res judicata.

Accordingly, all discovery in this matter shall be STAYED pending further order of this Court, including Plaintiff's motion to compel the SCC (Dkt. 16).