Opinion
No. C 01-00739 PJH (PR), (Doc 245).
September 20, 2005
DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO LIFT DISCOVERY STAY
This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Plaintiff moves to lift the discovery stay as to defendants Vargas and Watsonville Community Hospital, saying that he needs discovery to oppose those defendants' motion for summary judgment. He also asks that the court delay ruling on the motion for summary judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f) (if party opposing summary judgment demonstrates need for further discovery to obtain facts essential to opposition, trial court may deny motion for summary judgment or continue hearing to allow for such discovery).
On May 2, 2005, the court denied a motion to lift the discovery stay as to defendant Bailey. In that ruling the court informed plaintiff that to get the stay lifted he must show what facts he hopes to discover and why they would prevent entry of summary judgment. Despite having been warned about this standard in the previous ruling, in this motion plaintiff fails to show what purpose would be served by further discovery, alleging only that he wants to see what facts these defendants will admit in response to his request for admissions and in his interrogatories. This is completely insufficient. Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 1998) (party opposing summary judgment must make clear "what information is sought and how it would preclude summary judgment."). The motion to lift the stay and delay ruling on the motion for summary judgment (doc 245) is DENIED.
Plaintiff's opposition, if any, shall be filed by October 3, 2005. No extensions of time to oppose the motion or to lift the discovery stay will be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.