Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03753/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03753-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD F. MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. L. MUNIZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03753-HSG (PR) 

ORDER ON PENDING DISCOVERY 

MOTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 49, 53, 54, 74

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials at Salinas Valley State Prison, where he is currently 

incarcerated. Plaintiff alleged that defendants Muniz, Martella, Hatton, Barela, Medina, and 

Mojica, all correctional staff members within the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation, retaliated against him in violation of his First Amendment rights when they 

wrongly screened out (rejected at an early stage) or otherwise interfered with the processing of his 

prison grievances. The Court found that, liberally construed, the complaint stated a cognizable 

claim for retaliation and ordered service upon defendants.

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment that raises 

the defense of qualified immunity. Plaintiff has filed three motions to compel discovery, and 

defendants have filed a motion to stay discovery pending the ruling on their qualified immunity 

argument.

Case 4:14-cv-03753-HSG Document 86 Filed 10/27/15 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

A. Motions to Compel

Plaintiff’s motions to compel will be denied without prejudice. This denial is based on the 

good faith assurance provided by defendants’ counsel in his pleadings that documents and 

supplemental answers to interrogatories were provided to plaintiff subsequent to plaintiff’s filing 

of his motions to compel. Although it does not appear that the supplemental discovery resolved 

all of the discovery disputes, the Court is unable to discern which disputes remain, based on the 

record currently before it.

 Defendants’ counsel also represents that although the parties engaged in some initial 

meet-and-confer, defendants requested further discussion so that plaintiff could clarify the 

information he sought. Defendants’ counsel represents that plaintiff refused further discussion and 

proceeded to file his motions to compel. Plaintiff does not deny that he declined defendants’

request for further discussion but represents that clarification was not necessary because 

defendants could simply reference the complaint. On this record, the Court finds that there 

remains an opportunity for a meaningful meet-and-confer.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions to compel are denied without prejudice to re-filing after 

plaintiff reviews defendants’ supplemental responses and engages in further meet-and-confer with 

defendants’ counsel.

Defendants point out that plaintiff did not comply with this Court’s standing order 

requiring a party to obtain leave of court before filing a discovery dispute and specifying that 

discovery disputes shall be prepared by joint letter brief not to exceed five pages. Because 

plaintiff is detained, he will not be required to obtain leave of court before filing a future motion to 

compel. Nor will the parties be required to prepare a joint letter brief. However, plaintiff will be 

limited to one single motion to compel addressing all remaining discovery disputes and not to 

exceed fifteen (15) pages. Plaintiff must therein certify that he has engaged in further meet-andconfer. Plaintiff must also clearly inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of his 

motion to compel and for each disputed response, why defendants’ objections are not justified or 

why the response provided is deficient. If plaintiff files a renewed motion to compel, defendants 

Case 4:14-cv-03753-HSG Document 86 Filed 10/27/15 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

shall file an opposition, not to exceed fifteen (15) pages, within twenty-eight (28) days after the 

date the motion is filed. Plaintiff may file a reply brief, not to exceed five (5) pages, within 

fourteen (14) after the date the opposition is filed. Plaintiff is reminded that this case presents a 

straightforward issue: Did defendants interfere with the processing of his prison grievances?

Plaintiff’s discovery requests need to be tailored to relate to the specific case brought against 

defendants. 

If there are records referred to in plaintiff’s discovery requests that do not exist, counsel for 

defendants should inform plaintiff accordingly so that plaintiff does not include them in any future 

motion to compel.

B. Motion to Stay Discovery

Citing Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998), defendants argue that discovery 

should be stayed pending ruling on their pending motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, 

which assert defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity. In Crawford-El, the Supreme Court 

held that where a plaintiff files a § 1983 complaint that “requires proof of unlawful motive,” the 

district court, may, “prior to permitting any discovery at all,” either (1) require the plaintiff to 

plead sufficient facts to “establish improper motive causing cognizable injury” or (2) if qualified 

immunity is raised as a defense, “assum[e] the truth of the plaintiff's allegations” and “resolve that 

threshold question.” See id. at 597-98. 

In their pending motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, defendants do claim 

qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. However, defendants also claim that they are 

entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because plaintiff’s First Amendment rights were 

not violated. Defendants assert a number of other alternate defenses, including plaintiff’s failure 

to exhaust administrative remedies. Only if qualified immunity were the sole basis for their 

motion would the Court consider staying discovery pending resolution of the motion.

Accordingly, defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the question of qualified 

immunity is DENIED.

Plaintiff is reminded that his opposition to the pending motion to dismiss and for summary 

judgment is currently due on or before December 11, 2015.

Case 4:14-cv-03753-HSG Document 86 Filed 10/27/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff motions to compel (dkt. nos. 49, 53, 54) are DENIED without prejudice.

2. Defendants’ motion to stay discovery (dkt. no. 74) is DENIED.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 49, 53, 54, and 74.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

10/27/2015

Case 4:14-cv-03753-HSG Document 86 Filed 10/27/15 Page 4 of 4