Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01365/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01365-3/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

EUGENIO LUIS NOGUERAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. LOPEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-01365-SKO (PC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER AND STAYING 

DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION OF 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST

(Doc. 26)

Plaintiff Eugenio Luis Nogueras (“Plaintiff”), a former state prisoner proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 21, 

2012. This action for monetary damages is proceeding against Defendant DiLeo (“Defendant”)

for violating Plaintiff’s right to adequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment of the United 

States Constitution. On November 7, 2014, Defendant filed a motion seeking a protective order 

staying discovery pending resolution of his concurrently-filed motion for summary judgment for

failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. (Doc. 26.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on February 13, 2015, 

Defendant filed a reply on March 12, 2015, and the motion has been submitted upon the record 

without oral argument. (Doc. 32, Opp., court record p. 6; Doc. 37.) 

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 

Case 1:12-cv-01365-DAD-SKO Document 41 Filed 04/09/15 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

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 Defendant is entitled to judgment on 

Plaintiff’s claim against him if the Court determines the claim is 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 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, however, Plaintiff’s 

opposition makes no showing that he needs any specific discovery in order to oppose the 

exhaustion motion. To the contrary, Plaintiff’s opposition merely evidences a blanket desire to 

engage in full merits-based discovery.

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

been shown, Defendant’s motion for a protective order shielding him from discovery pending 

Case 1:12-cv-01365-DAD-SKO Document 41 Filed 04/09/15 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

resolution of his exhaustion motion is HEREBY GRANTED and discovery is STAYED.

1

 Fed. R. 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

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

24.)

Case 1:12-cv-01365-DAD-SKO Document 41 Filed 04/09/15 Page 3 of 3