Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01253/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01253-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Melvin R. Arrant is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion for a protective order, filed September 22, 

2021. 

This action is proceeding Defendants Lozano, E. Garcia, Dodson, J. Valdez, Felix, A. Flores, 

P. Chanelo, and D. Tapia for retaliation, and a separate excessive force claims against Defendants J. 

Florez and D. Tapia. 

Defendants request the Court issue a protective order staying all merit-based discovery in order 

for them to investigate whether Plaintiff exhausted his retaliation claim and potentially file a summary 

judgment motion on that claim. Defendants argue a decision on exhaustion as to Plaintiff’s retaliation 

claim will potentially eliminate the need for discovery on this claim. 

///

MELVIN R. ARRANT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KELLY SANTORO, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-01253-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 

ORDER 

(ECF No. 40)

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 41 Filed 09/23/21 Page 1 of 3
2

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

A party may seek a protective order that stays discovery pending resolution of a potentially 

dispositive motion. Mlejnecky v. Olympus Imaging America, Inc., 2011 WL 489743, at * 5 (E.D. Cal. 

2011) (citing Wenger v. Monroe, 282 F.3d 1068, 1077 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming district court's grant 

of protective order staying discovery pending resolution of motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6))).

District courts look unfavorably upon blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive 

motion is pending. Id. at 6. A motion for protective order seeking to preclude discovery must be 

supported by “good cause” and a “strong showing.” Id. Federal district courts in California have 

applied a two-part test when evaluating a request to stay. Id. “First, the pending motion must be 

potentially dispositive of the entire case, or at least dispositive on the issue at which discovery is 

aimed.” Id. “Second, the court must determine whether the pending, potentially dispositive motion can 

be decided absent additional discovery.” Id. “Discovery should proceed if either prong of this test is 

not met.” Id.

District courts have also consistently found that a judge deciding whether to issue a stay of 

discovery should take a ‘peek’ at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion in evaluating whether 

a stay should issue.” Id. at 8 (citing Quest Commc'ns Corp v. Herakles, LLC., 2007 WL 2288299, at 

*2 (E.D. Cal. 2007); Seven Springs Ltd. Partnership v. Fox Capital Management Corp., 2007 WL 

1146607, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2007); GTE Wireless, Inc. v. Qualcom, 192 F.R.D. 284, 286 (S.D. Cal. 

2000)).

Defendants' motion to stay discovery is denied because Defendants failed to file the summary 

judgment motion on which the pending motion to stay is based. The undersigned cannot evaluate the 

pending motion to stay without a “cursory” review of the merits of the potentially dispositive 

summary judgment motion. Moreover, the pending motion appears overbroad. Defendants seek to 

stay discovery as to the merits of all of plaintiff's claims, including plaintiff's excessive force claim. 

However, it is unclear whether the summary judgment motion Defendants intend to file will also argue 

that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to his excessive force claim.

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 41 Filed 09/23/21 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Accordingly, Defendants' motion to stay discovery is denied without prejudice to its refiling 

once Defendants file the motion for summary judgment based on alleged failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2021 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 41 Filed 09/23/21 Page 3 of 3