Opinion
CASE NO. 3:19-CV-05033-RJB-DWC
06-27-2019
DANNY A WING SR, Plaintiff, v. LEWIS COUNTY, at al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
The District Court has referred this action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. On June 6, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Discovery requesting the Court stay discovery pending the resolution of their Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 25. Plaintiff, through counsel, filed a Response to the Motion deferring to the Court's discretion in considering the Motion to Stay Discovery. Dkt. 27.
The Court has broad discretionary powers to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.1988). A court may relieve a party of the burdens of discovery while a dispositive motion is pending. See Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984); DiMartini v. Ferrin, 889 F.2d 922, 926 (9th Cir. 1989), amended at 906 F.2d 465 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 506 (D. Nev. 2013) (permitting a stay of discovery where a pending dispositive motion is (1) "potentially dispositive of the entire case or at least dispositive of the issue on which discovery is sought" and (2) can be decided without additional discovery). "The Supreme Court has held that until the threshold issue of [qualified] immunity is resolved, discovery should not proceed." DiMartini, 889 F.2d at 926.
Here, the pending Motion for Summary Judgment addresses all claims alleged in the Complaint and asserts Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Dkt. 1, 12. The Court finds the Motion for Summary Judgment will potentially result in a dismissal of the entire action and can render a decision on the Motion for Summary Judgment without additional discovery. Further, the Court finds a stay would advance the efficiency of the Court and litigants. Thus, Defendants Motion to Stay Discovery (Dkt. 25) is granted. Discovery is stayed until the resolution of the pending Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Court notes Plaintiff requested the Motion for Summary Judgment be dismissed and he be allowed to conduct additional discovery pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dkt. 19. If the Court deems it appropriate to grant Plaintiff's Rule 56(d) request, the Court will lift this stay.
Dated this 27th day of June, 2019.
/s/_________
David W. Christel
United States Magistrate Judge