Opinion
2:10-cv-01662-GMN-LRL.
December 21, 2010
ORDER
Before the court is plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Order of Stay of Discovery (#20). On December 2, 2010, the court granted defendants' motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (#12). Order (#17). There the court noted that discovery had not yet commenced, nor was discovery necessary to resolve the pending motion to dismiss (#6). Plaintiff, Timothy Harris, has filed the instant Motion to Vacate (#20) on the ground that he did not consent to his case being adjudicated by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Mot. (#20) at 1.
Mr. Harris misapprehends the scope of § 636(c)(1), which relates to proceedings leading to final adjudication of the case. Pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-3, "A magistrate judge may hear and finally determine any pretrial matter not specifically enumerated as an exception in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)." The exceptions listed in § 636(b)(1)(A) include, "a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action." None of these exceptions is related to a motion to stay discovery. Magistrate judges routinely hear and decide matters related to discovery, which are not final adjudications of the case.
Accordingly, and for cause demonstrated,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Order of Stay of Discovery (#20) is denied.
DATED this 21st day of December, 2010.