Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01391/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01391-20/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL G. VALENCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WINFRED KOKOR,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01391 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT KOKOR’S 

MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

(Document 74)

Plaintiff Daniel G. Valencia (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in 

this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Second 

Amended Complaint, which states a claim under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Kokor

and Sundaram. 

Discovery opened as to Defendant Kokor on February 17, 2016. Defendant Sundaram’s 

February 16, 2016, motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6) is pending.

On February 17, 2016, Defendant Kokor filed a motion to stay discovery pending resolution 

of Defendant Sundaram’s motion to dismiss. The Court deems the motion suitable for decision 

without an opposition pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

DISCUSSION

The Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery. Dichter–Mad Family 

Partners, LLP v. U.S., 709 F.3d 749, 751 (9th Cir. 2013); Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 

Case 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-MJS Document 75 Filed 03/01/16 Page 1 of 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

2

616 (9th Cir. 2012). Pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1), the Court may, for good cause, issue a protective 

order forbidding or limiting discovery. The avoidance of undue burden or expense is grounds for the 

issuance of a protective order, Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), and a stay of discovery pending resolution of 

potentially dispositive issues furthers the goal of efficiency for the courts and the litigants, Little v. 

City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.1988) (stay of discovery pending resolution of immunity 

issue). 

Defendant Kokor requests that discovery be stayed to avoid duplication of costs and efforts. 

He states, “the current posture of the case will send the litigation along two different tracks because 

discovery will begin for Dr. Kokor long before it is known whether the claim against Dr. Sundaram 

will survive. If discovery in this case proceeds at different paces, and at different times, for different 

Defendants, it will burden the parties and result in duplicated efforts and increased costs.” ECF No. 

74-1, at 3. 

In certain situations, the Court will stay discovery to avoid undue burden or expense. In this 

case, however, the action is proceeding against Defendant Kokor regardless of the outcome of the 

motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Sundaram. Both Defendants have the same counsel, meaning 

that if the case continues against Defendant Sundaram, counsel will know what discovery has 

already been completed so as to avoid duplication of effort and costs. Moreover, given the similarity 

of the claims, Defendant Sundaram, if he remains in this action, will benefit from discovery 

conducted by Defendant Kokor.

For these reasons, the Court finds that a stay of discovery is not warranted. Defendant 

Kokor’s motion is therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-MJS Document 75 Filed 03/01/16 Page 2 of 2