Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00599/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00599-17/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FELIPE GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. BITER, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-00599-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER STRIKING DUPLICATIVE 

OPPOSITION, DENYING MOTION TO 

STRIKE AS MOOT, GRANTING MOTION 

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND 

STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING 

RESOLUTION OF MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE 

TO EXHAUST

(Docs. 62, 69, and 71)

I. Background

Plaintiff Felipe Garcia (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 25, 2013. This action

for damages is proceeding on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint against Defendants Hernandez, 

Mosqueda, and Baker (“Defendants”) for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and for 

endangering Plaintiff’s safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

Defendants filed an answer on June 25, 2015, and the Court issued a scheduling order on 

July 1, 2015. On October 16, 2015, Defendants filed a motion seeking a protective order staying 

discovery pending resolution of their motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust the 

available administrative remedies, which was filed on October 1, 2015. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. (Docs. 60, 62.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on October 

Case 1:13-cv-00599-LJO-SKO Document 74 Filed 11/16/15 Page 1 of 4
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

26, 2015, and a second, duplicative opposition on October 28, 2015. (Docs. 65, 69.) Defendants 

filed a reply and a motion to strike what they characterized as a surreply on November 2, 2015. 

(Docs. 70, 71.) 

II. Motion to Strike Surreply

For reasons that are unclear, the Court received two oppositions to Defendants’ motion for 

a protective order, two days apart. The oppositions are duplicative of one another, and the latter

filing is not a surreply. Therefore, the duplicative opposition shall be stricken from the record and 

Defendants’ motion to strike the surreply shall be denied as moot.

III. Protective Order Staying Discovery

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) (per curiam), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 117 

(2013); Hunt, 672 F.3d at 616; Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th 

Cir. 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 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). The propriety of 

delaying discovery on the merits of the plaintiff’s claims pending resolution of an exhaustion 

motion was explicitly recognized by the Ninth Circuit. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170-71 

(9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 403 (2014); see also Gibbs v. Carson, No. C-13-

0860 THE (PR), 2014 WL 172187, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2014).

The failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, and Defendants are entitled to judgment 

on Plaintiff’s claims against them if the Court determines the claims are unexhausted. Albino, 747 

F.3d at 1166. Thus, the pending exhaustion motion has the potential to bring final resolution to 

this action, obviating the need for merits-based discovery. Gibbs, 2014 WL 172187, at *3. In 

Albino, the Ninth Circuit recognized that “[e]xhaustion should be decided, if feasible, before 

Case 1:13-cv-00599-LJO-SKO Document 74 Filed 11/16/15 Page 2 of 4
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

3

reaching the merits of a prisoner’s claims,” and “discovery directed to the merits of the suit” 

should be left until later. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1170. 

To the extent that the non-moving party needs specific discovery to address issues raised in 

a dispositive motion, the non-moving party is entitled to seek redress. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d); 

Albino, 747 F.3d at 1170-71; Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1115 n.7 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(overruled on other grounds by Albino, 747 F.3d at 1168-69). Here, Plaintiff’s opposition makes 

no showing that in order to oppose the exhaustion motion, he needs specific discovery that (1) is 

relevant to the issue of exhaustion and (2) he reasonably believes exists.

1

 Plaintiff’s opposition 

merely evidences a blanket desire to engage in full merits-based discovery. The mere desire to 

continue with discovery does not suffice to avert the issuance of a protective order pending 

resolution of a dispositive motion raising the issue of exhaustion. Therefore, Defendants are 

entitled to the stay of discovery they seek.

IV. Order

Accordingly, in the absence of any actual prejudice to Plaintiff and good cause having 

been shown, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s duplicative opposition, filed on October 28, 2015, is STRICKEN from 

the record;

2. Defendants’ motion to strike, filed on November 2, 2015, is DENIED as moot; and

///

///

///

///

///

 

1 Rule 56(d) provides that “[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot 

present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow 

time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(d). In seeking relief under Rule 56(d), Plaintiff bears the burden of specifically identifying relevant information, 

where there is some basis for believing that the information actually exists, and demonstrating that the evidence 

sought actually exists and that it would prevent summary judgment. Blough v. Holland Realty, Inc., 574 F.3d 1084, 

1091 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted); Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852, 867-68 (9th Cir. 

2011); Tatum v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Case 1:13-cv-00599-LJO-SKO Document 74 Filed 11/16/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

3. Defendants’ motion for a protective order shielding them from discovery pending 

resolution of their exhaustion motion is GRANTED and discovery is STAYED.2 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Albino, 747 F.3d at 1170-71.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2

If Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied, the Court will issue an amended scheduling order. (Doc. 

51.)

Case 1:13-cv-00599-LJO-SKO Document 74 Filed 11/16/15 Page 4 of 4