Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01329/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01329-11/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

FLOYD SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. PALMER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01329-SKO PC

ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING MOTION

AND STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING

RECEIPT OF PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO

MOTION TO STAY AND MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 42)

FORTY-FIVE DAY RESPONSE DEADLINE

Plaintiff Floyd Scott, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 29, 2009. This action is proceeding against Defendants Palmer, Rivera,

and Lopez for excessive force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States

Constitution. Defendants filed an answer on June 27, 2011, and this action is subject to the

scheduling order filed on June 28, 2011. On August 30, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for

summary judgment and on August 31, 2011, Defendants filed a motion seeking to stay discovery

pending resolution of their motion for summary judgment or a thirty-day extension of time to

respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests in the event their motion to stay is denied.

Plaintiff served Defendants with requests for admission, interrogatories, and a request for the

production of documents on July 17, 2011. Pursuant to the scheduling order, Defendants’ responses

are due on or before September 6, 2011. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6; Discovery and Scheduling Order, ¶2. 

The Court will partially grant Defendants’ request to stay discovery, pending Plaintiff’s response to

their motions to stay and for summary judgment. 

1

Case 1:09-cv-01329-SKO Document 44 Filed 09/02/11 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

If Plaintiff needs discovery to oppose Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, he is

entitled to it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). If Plaintiff believes he cannot oppose the motion for summary

judgment on the merits without discovery, however, the burden is on him to review Defendants’

motion, determine what discoveryis necessaryto oppose the motion, and make the requisite showing

in a Rule 56(d) motion.1

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to stay discovery, filed August 31, 2011, is partially granted and

discovery is stayed pending Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ motions to stay and

for summary judgment; and

2. Within forty-five (45) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file

(1) a response to Defendants’ motion to stay and (2) either a response to Defendants’

motion for summary judgment on the merits or a Rule 56(d) motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2011 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Rule 56(d), formerly Rule 56(f), provides, “If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for

1

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). To prevail on a Rule 56(d) motion, Plaintiff must file a timely motion

specifically identifying the relevant information sought, where there is some basis for believing that the information

actually exists. Blough v. Holland Realty, Inc., 574 F.3d 1084, 1091 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and

citation omitted). Plaintiff must demonstrate that the evidence sought actually exists and that it would prevent

summary judgment. Blough, 574 F.3d at 1091 n.5 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2

Case 1:09-cv-01329-SKO Document 44 Filed 09/02/11 Page 2 of 2