Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05559/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05559-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY P. RUIZ, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

N. WALKER; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-5559 SI (pr)

ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY AND

SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

Defendants Aldana, Lonero, Rocha and Walker have filed a motion to stay discovery

pending a decision on their motion for summary judgment in which they assert entitlement to

judgment as a matter of law on the defense of qualified immunity. (The fifth defendant, Sotelo,

is represented by separate counsel and has not moved for a stay of discovery, but has asserted

a qualified immunity argument in his separate motion for summary judgment.) The U.S.

Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that a district court should stay discovery until the

threshold question of qualified immunity is settled. See Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574,

598 (1998); Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 646 n.6 (1987); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457

U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Accordingly, the court GRANTS defendants' motion to stay discovery.

(Docket # 33.) All discovery is STAYED for until defendants' motions for summary judgment

raising the qualified immunity defense are resolved. The stay of discovery applies to all

defendants.

In light of the stay of discovery, plaintiff's motions to compel discovery responses are

DENIED. (Docket # 34, # 37.) The denial of these motions is without prejudice to plaintiff

filing new motions to compel discovery if his case survives the pending motions for summary

judgment. 

Case 3:06-cv-05559-SI Document 41 Filed 09/04/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

Plaintiff's ex parte requests for an extension of time to file his opposition briefs to the two

pending motions for summary judgment are GRANTED. (Docket # 35, # 40.) Plaintiff must

file and serve on both defense counsel his opposition brief(s) no later than October 10, 2007.

Defendants must file and serve on plaintiff their reply briefs, if any, no later than October 24,

2007. 

The two defense attorneys apparently have not served a copy of their respective motions

for summary judgment on each other. All documents filed with the court must be served on all

other parties, regardless of whether a party is seeking relief against that other party. No later

than September 19, 2007, counsel for defendant Sotelo must serve a copy of Sotelo's motion

for summary judgment on counsel for defendants Aldana, Lonero, Rocha and Walker, and

counsel for defendants Aldana, Lonero, Rocha and Walker must serve a copy of their motion on

counsel for Sotelo. Plaintiff must serve a copy of his opposition brief(s) on each of the two

defense attorneys, regardless of whether his filing pertains to one or both sets of defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2007 ______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05559-SI Document 41 Filed 09/04/07 Page 2 of 2