Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00600/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00600-16/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

RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

NAVARRO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00600-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO STAY MERITS-BASED

DISCOVERY

(ECF No. 66)

Plaintiff Roderick William Lear (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Navarro, Neve, Allison, and Plata for 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, arising from the incident on January 4, 

2020. Defendants Navarro, Neve, and Allison have answered the complaint. Defendant Plata has 

not yet been served.

On May 13, 2022, Defendants Navarro, Neve, and Allison filed a motion for summary 

judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before 

bringing this action, (ECF No. 65), together with a motion to stay merits-based discovery pending 

resolution of their motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion of administrative 

remedies, (ECF No. 66). Pursuant to the Court’s February 10, 2022 Discovery and Scheduling 

Order, the deadline for the completion of all discovery is October 10, 2022. (ECF No. 43.)

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 68 Filed 05/16/22 Page 1 of 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

2

Although Plaintiff has not had the opportunity to file a response to Defendants’ motion to

stay merits-based discovery, the Court finds a response unnecessary. The motion is deemed 

submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and 

with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily 

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot 

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was 

not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id.

In their motion, Defendants Navarro, Neve, and Allison argue that the pending motion for 

summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies will potentially dispose of the 

entire case, the Court does not require additional information to decide the motion, and the 

expenditure of resources required to respond to merits-based discovery requests will be needless 

if the Court grants Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 66.) If Defendants’ motion is denied, the 

parties may conduct discovery as to all remaining issues, having only suffered a brief delay. 

Defendants therefore request that the Court stay merits-based discovery until the motion for 

summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion is resolved. (Id.)

Having considered Defendants’ moving papers, the Court finds good cause to stay meritsbased discovery. Defendants have been diligent in filing the dispositive motion, and it would be a 

waste of the resources of the Court and the parties to require the preparation of potentially 

unnecessary merits-based discovery. 

However, to the extent Plaintiff has served discovery requests relating to the issue of 

exhaustion of administrative remedies, Defendants are not relieved of their existing 

obligation to timely respond to those requests. Given that Plaintiff has not had the opportunity 

to respond to Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order, the Court finds it 

appropriate to require Defendants to complete any outstanding discovery requests related to the 

exhaustion issue, as required by the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order. Although 

Defendants argue that no further information is needed for the Court to decide the exhaustion 

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 68 Filed 05/16/22 Page 2 of 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

3

motion, Plaintiff may well disagree.

Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the relief requested, as the 

Court will reset the applicable deadline, if necessary, following a ruling on the pending motion.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendants’ motion to stay merits-based discovery, (ECF No. 66), is GRANTED; and

2. All merits-based discovery is STAYED, as discussed above, pending resolution of the 

motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 68 Filed 05/16/22 Page 3 of 3