Opinion
No. C10-5392 BHS/KLS.
May 23, 2011
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and To Stay Discovery Pending Outcome. ECF No. 26. In this Order, the Court addresses Defendants' motion to stay discovery. The motion for summary judgment is the subject of a separate Report and Recommendation.
BACKGROUND
In their motion for summary judgment, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because Plaintiff has failed to state show a constitutional violation and that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. ECF No. 18, p. 2. Under separate Report and Recommendation, the undersigned recommends that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted except as to Plaintiff's retaliation claim.
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).As noted above, the undersigned is recommending to the District Court that Plaintiffs' claims, with the exception of his retaliation claim, be dismissed with prejudice. Defendants should not face the burden and expense of responding to discovery as to claims that will be dismissed if the District Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
(1) Defendant's motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED.
(2) All discovery is STAYED pending further order of this Court.
(3) The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants.