Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04934/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04934-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICE MACK,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL L. FRIEDMAN; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-4934 MHP (pr)

ORDER

Defendants' motion for summary judgment, filed three months ago, is still pending. 

After defendants filed their motion, plaintiff attempted to propound further discovery

requests on them and, when unsuccessful, filed a motion to compel discovery. Defendants

opposed the motion to compel and moved to stay discovery pending resolution of their

summary judgment motion in which they raised a qualified immunity defense. Plaintiff

responded to that motion by seeking an extension of time so that he could have more time to

file an opposition to the motion to stay discovery, a reply in support of his motion to compel,

and a motion to stay the summary judgment until he could do discovery. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that a district court should stay

discovery until the threshold question of qualified immunity is settled. See Crawford-El v.

Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 646 n.6 (1987);

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The duty to stay discovery once defendants

file a dispositive motion raising qualified immunity as a defense is very well-settled. 

Case 3:06-cv-04934-MHP Document 36 Filed 11/16/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Defendants' motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. (Docket # 31.) All discovery is

STAYED until defendants' motion for summary judgment raising the qualified immunity

defense is resolved. To effectuate the purpose of the rule requiring a stay of discovery when

qualified immunity is raised, it also is necessary to postpone ruling on plaintiff's motion to

compel until after the qualified immunity question is decided. Therefore, the court will not

rule on plaintiff's motion to compel until after it rules on the pending motion for summary

judgment. This means that plaintiff must prepare his opposition to the summary judgment

motion without the benefit of the discovery that is the subject of his motion to compel.

Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time is DENIED. (Docket # 34.) The court

will, however, reset the deadlines for the pending motion for summary judgment in case

plaintiff was waiting for discovery before preparing his opposition. Plaintiff must file and

serve his opposition to the motion no later than December 14, 2007. Defendants must file

and serve their opposition, if any, no later than January 11, 2008. No further extensions of

these deadlines should be expected in light of the fact that the motion has been pending for

several months already. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2007 ______________________

 Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04934-MHP Document 36 Filed 11/16/07 Page 2 of 2