Opinion
1:19-cv-00068-AWI-BAM (PC)
12-22-2021
SHAUNTAE TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. JIMINEZ, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY (ECF No. 46)
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Shauntae Taylor (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's first amended complaint against Defendants Jimenez, Rodriguez, Huckleberry, Rye, and Hernandez for excessive force and deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Erroneously sued as “Jiminez.”
On December 22, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff's excessive force claim, (ECF No. 45), together with the instant motion to stay discovery related to Plaintiff's excessive force claim, (ECF No. 46). Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to file an opposition to the motion to stay discovery with the Court, but the Court finds an opposition is unnecessary. The motion to stay discovery is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(1).
Defendants argue that the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings will potentially dispose of Plaintiff's excessive force claim, the Court does not require additional information to decide the pending motion, and the expenditure of resources required to respond to discovery on Plaintiff's excessive force claim will be needless if the Court grants Defendants' pending motion. 1
(ECF No. 46.) Defendants contend that a stay is in the interest of judicial economy because the parties would be relieved of the burdens of propounding and responding to discovery that would be rendered unnecessary if Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted. (Id.) The Court finds good cause for a stay of discovery related to Plaintiff's excessive force claim under these circumstances. Proceeding with discovery related to a claim that may be disposed of by the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings will result in unnecessary motion practice, litigation costs, and a waste of judicial resources. If Defendants do not prevail on their motion, Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by a modest delay in proceeding with discovery related to the excessive force claim. In addition, Plaintiff will not be prejudiced because discovery related to Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim or to any exhaustion issues may continue. The Court notes that to the extent a discovery request may relate to both the excessive force claim and the deliberate indifference claim, the parties remain obligated to respond as required by the Court's Discovery and Scheduling Order.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendants' motion to stay discovery, (ECF No. 46), is GRANTED
2. Discovery related to Plaintiff's excessive force claim is stayed pending resolution of Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings;
3. In the event that the excessive force claim is not resolved by the motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court will reset or reinstate the applicable deadlines for discovery on the excessive force claim; and
4. Plaintiff's opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 45), remains due on or before January 17, 2022.
IT IS SO ORDERED.