Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01352/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01352-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUBEN VALDEZ, No. 2:12-cv-1352-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. There are several motions pending in this matter, including plaintiff’s motion for

additional time to file an opposition to the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc.

63), defendant’s motion for a protective order (Doc. 61), defendant’s motion for additional time

to respond to discovery (Doc. 68), and defendant’s motion to modify the scheduling order (Doc.

72). All other motions will be addressed by separate order. 

First, plaintiff filed a motion for additional time to oppose defendants’ motion for

judgment on the pleading. Plaintiff has now filed his opposition, and the motion for judgment is

ready on the merits. Plaintiff’s motion will be granted, and his opposition will be considered

timely filed and will be considered by the court when addressing the merits of the motion. 

1

Case 2:12-cv-01352-JAM-DMC Document 79 Filed 03/28/16 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

Next, defendants have requested a protective order to stay discovery until the

court rules on the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings, as well as a motion for

additional time to respond to discovery, and a motion to modify the scheduling order. These

motions are all related. Discovery opened shortly after the defendant filed an answer to

plaintiff’s amended complaint. Prior to the close of discovery, defendants filed the pending

motion for judgment on the pleadings. Until the court rules on the motion for judgment,

discovery need not continue. If the court grants the motion for judgment, no further discovery

may be necessary. If the court denies the motion, discovery may continue. 

Good cause appearing therefor, defendants’ motions for a protective order staying

the discovery in this case until after the court rules on the motion for judgment on the pleadings

will be granted. The deadlines set forth in the court’s scheduling order will be vacated, and the

court will issue a new scheduling order if appropriate after the motion for judgment has been

addressed. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for additional time to oppose defendants’ motion for

judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 63) is granted and plaintiff’s opposition is considered timely

filed;

2. Defendants’ motion for protective order (Doc. 61) is granted to the extent

the court will suspend any further discovery until resolution of the motion for judgment on the

pleadings;

3. Defendants’ motion for additional time to respond to discovery requests

(Doc. 68) is granted;

4. Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order (Doc. 72) is granted;

5. The parties need not respond to any outstanding discovery requests until

after the resolution of the motion for judgment on the pleadings; and

/ / / 

2

Case 2:12-cv-01352-JAM-DMC Document 79 Filed 03/28/16 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

6. The dates set forth in the court’s scheduling order are vacated, and a new

scheduling order will issue following resolution of the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

DATED: March 25, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:12-cv-01352-JAM-DMC Document 79 Filed 03/28/16 Page 3 of 3