Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00807/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00807-16/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

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

MICHAEL J. PAYAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

H. TATE, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13cv00807 LJO DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY 

IN PART AND STAYING MERITS-BASED 

DISCOVERY

(Document 63)

Plaintiff Michael J. Payan (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action on May 28, 2013. This action is proceeding on the 

following cognizable claims: (1) retaliation in violation of the First Amendment by Defendants 

Bingamon, Tate and Vu; and (2) deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Bingamon, Tate, Vu, Sheisha and Joaquin.

The action is currently in discovery. 

On May 19, 2015, Defendants filed a timely motion for summary judgment based on 

exhaustion. The motion is pending.

On June 2, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the 

motion for summary judgment. The Court deems the motion suitable for decision without an 

opposition pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

Case 1:13-cv-00807-LJO-BAM Document 64 Filed 06/03/15 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

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, 

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). 

Pursuant to the procedure set forth in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014), 

motions for summary judgment are now required for raising exhaustion issues. This means that 

based on the Court’s general practice, merits-based discovery will have opened prior to the time 

Defendants are required to file an exhaustion challenge.

In this case, discovery opened on February 18, 2015. Between the commencement of 

discovery and Defendants’ May 19, 2015, motion for summary judgment based on exhaustion, 

Plaintiff propounded a total of ten sets of discovery requests. Doering Decl. ¶ 3. 

Here, the pending motion for summary judgment is potentially dispositive of all claims in 

this case and could render Plaintiff’s discovery requests moot. Moreover, Defendants have not 

delayed in requesting a protective order. In such cases, the Court finds good cause to grant a stay 

of discovery only as to merits-based discovery. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1170 (“If discovery is 

appropriate, the district court may in its discretion limit discovery to evidence concerning 

exhaustion, leaving until later-if it becomes necessary-discovery directed to the merits of the 

suit.”). 

Plaintiff will not be prejudiced as to the pending motion because, if he believes that 

discovery related to exhaustion is necessary, he may file a request pursuant to Rule 56(d). 

Case 1:13-cv-00807-LJO-BAM Document 64 Filed 06/03/15 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

Pursuant to the Discovery and Scheduling Order, any such request must be filed within thirty 

(30) days of the date of service of the motion for summary judgment. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED IN PART and the Court STAYS meritsbased discovery. Defendants are relieved from responding to merits-based discovery already 

served by Plaintiff. If any of Plaintiff’s claims survive the exhaustion challenge, the Court will 

issue an amended scheduling order allowing additional time for discovery related to the 

remaining claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00807-LJO-BAM Document 64 Filed 06/03/15 Page 3 of 3