# (PC) Gann v. Vera-Brown > District Court, E.D. California · March 3, 2022 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10042944 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** March 3, 2022 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10042944 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATHANIEL MARCUS GANN, Case No. 1:18-cv-00084-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY 13 v. DISCOVERY 14 VERA-BROWN, (ECF No. 59) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Nathaniel Marcus Gann (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s second 19 amended complaint against Defendant Vera-Brown for deliberate indifference to serious medical 20 needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. All parties have consented to Magistrate Judge 21 jurisdiction. (ECF No. 52.) 22 On February 25, 2022, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground 23 that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the prison’s administrative grievance procedures for his claims 24 against Defendant prior to filing this lawsuit. (ECF No. 57.) On February 25, 2022, Plaintiff 25 filed a motion to compel discovery regarding Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Request for 26 Production of Documents (Set 1) and Plaintiff’s Interrogatories (Set 1). (ECF No. 58.) In partial 27 response, Defendant filed a motion to stay all discovery on February 28, 2022. (ECF No. 59.) 28 /// 1 Although Plaintiff has not had the opportunity to file a response to Defendant’s motion to 2 stay all discovery, the Court finds a response unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. 3 Local Rule 230(l). 4 Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and 5 with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily 6 considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 7 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot 8 reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was 9 not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id. 10 Defendant argues that the pending motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust 11 administrative remedies will potentially dispose of the entire case, the Court does not require 12 additional information to decide the motion, and the expenditure of resources required to respond 13 to discovery requests will be needless if the Court grants Defendant’s motion for summary 14 judgment. (ECF No. 59.) Defendant therefore requests that the Court stay all discovery and 15 Plaintiff’s motion to compel pending resolution of the pending motion for summary judgment. 16 (Id.) 17 Having considered Defendant’s moving papers, and having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion to 18 compel, the Court finds good cause to stay merits-based discovery—but not all discovery—in this 19 action. Defendant has been diligent in filing the dispositive motion, and it would be a waste of 20 the resources of the Court and the parties to require the preparation of potentially unnecessary 21 merits-based discovery or the filing of unnecessary dispositive motions. Further, it appears that 22 the discovery requests at issue in the motion to compel largely relate to the merits of this action, 23 rather than the question of exhaustion. 24 To the extent Plaintiff has served discovery requests relating to the issue of 25 exhaustion of administrative remedies, Defendant is not relieved of the existing obligation to 26 timely respond to those requests. Given that Plaintiff has not had the opportunity to respond to 27 Defendant’s motion to stay discovery, the Court finds it appropriate to require Defendant to 28 complete any outstanding discovery requests related to the exhaustion issue, as required by the 1 Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order. Although Defendant argues that no further information 2 is needed for the Court to decide the exhaustion motion, Plaintiff may well disagree. 3 Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the relief requested, as the 4 Court will lift the stay of merits discovery and reset the deadlines for briefing of the pending 5 motion to compel, if necessary, following a ruling on the pending motion for summary judgment. 6 To the extent Plaintiff believes that any of the discovery requests at issue in the pending motion to 7 compel relate to the issue of exhaustion, and Plaintiff is not otherwise able to obtain the 8 documents or information requested, Plaintiff may also raise those issues in his opposition to 9 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 10 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 11 1. Defendants’ motion to stay discovery, (ECF No. 59), is GRANTED IN PART; 12 2. All merits-based discovery is STAYED; and 13 3. As necessary and appropriate, the Court will lift the stay of merits-based discovery and 14 reset the deadlines for briefing Plaintiff’s motion to compel following resolution of the 15 pending motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: March 3, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10042944. Public record. Not legal advice.