Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01718/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01718-12/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

RODNEY GRAVES BEY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

WARDEN A. HEDGEPETH, et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

)

)

____________________________________)

1:08-cv-01718-LJO-GSA-PC 

 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Doc. 65.)

ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY,

EXCEPT FOR LIMITED PURPOSE

DESCRIBED BY THIS ORDER,

P E N D IN G R E S O L U T I O N O F

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

(Doc. 64.)

I. BACKGROUND

Rodney Graves Bey ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this

action on November 5, 2008, and the case now proceeds on the amended complaint filed on May 11,

2009, against defendant C/O Spry ("Defendant") for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.1

On July 8, 2010, Defendant filed a motion for a protective order shielding him from having to respond

to plaintiff’s discovery requests served on May 31, 2010, and staying discovery pending resolution of

Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. 65.) On July 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion

for a protective order. (Doc. 71.) 

All other claims and defendants were dismissed from this action by the Court on December 3, 2009. (Doc. 44.)

1

Case 1:08-cv-01718-LJO-GSA Document 72 Filed 08/02/10 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

II. REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

“Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought . . . , and for good

cause shown, the court . . . may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from

annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c).

Defendant requests a protective order staying discovery pending a ruling on his motion to

dismiss. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust remedies on June 18, 2010. (Doc.

64.) On May 31, 2010, Plaintiff served Defendant with requests for production of documents that are

not related to whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies. (Deft’s Motion for Protective

Order, Exh. A.) The responses to the request for documents are due on July 19, 2010. Defendant

requests a protective order to protect him from the burden of responding to discovery that will be

unnecessary if the Court grants the motion to dismiss. Defendant argues that it would serve the interest

of judicial economy to stay discovery until after the Court rules on the motion to dismiss.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that discovery should not be stayed, because under Rule 26(a),

Plaintiff has the right to discovery, and his need for discovery outweighs the burden that responding to

discovery will impose on Defendant. Plaintiff contends that he has exhausted his administrative

remedies before filing suit, and Defendant is offering false evidence against him. Plaintiff argues that

to stay discovery would deny Plaintiff his rights to judicial protection and equal protection. 

Based on a review of Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss and Plaintiff’s request for

production of documents, the court finds good cause for granting Defendant’s motion for a protective

order. See Wood v. McEwen, 644 F2d. 797, 801-02 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendant’s motion to dismiss is

based only on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and Plaintiff’s request 

is for documents which are not related to the exhaustion of remedies. Plaintiff’s request is for fifteen

documents or groups of documents, and it appears to the Court that Defendant will be required to

conduct considerable research before responding. Resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss may

cause discovery to be unnecessary. Thus, Plaintiff’s need for immediate discovery is outweighed by

Defendant’s burden in responding to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, when Defendant’s response may be

unnecessary. Accordingly, discovery shall be stayed in this action, except for discovery related to

///

Case 1:08-cv-01718-LJO-GSA Document 72 Filed 08/02/10 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

whether Plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies, pending resolution of Defendant’s motion to

dismiss.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion for a protective order, filed July 8, 2010, is GRANTED;

2. Discovery in this action is stayed, except for discovery related to whether Plaintiff has

exhausted administrative remedies, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss filed by

Defendant on June 18, 2010; and

3. Following the resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss, the Court shall issue a new

scheduling order if needed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 2, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01718-LJO-GSA Document 72 Filed 08/02/10 Page 3 of 3