Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00974/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00974-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL WITKIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. WISE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 19-cv-0974 KJM KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling 

order and stay discovery. (ECF No. 27.) For the reasons stated herein, defendants’ motion is 

denied.

This action proceeds on plaintiff’s amended complaint filed August 12, 2019 (ECF No. 

12) as to the following claims: 1) defendants Wise and Matteson allegedly violated plaintiff’s 

Eighth Amendment right to outdoor exercise; 2) defendants Wise, Broadstone and Zuniga 

allegedly retaliated against plaintiff for threatening to bring a civil rights action in violation of the 

First Amendment; and 3) defendants Wise, Broadstone, Zuniga and Matteson allegedly violated 

the California Tort Claims Act. (ECF No. 15.)

On February 28, 2020, the court issued a scheduling order setting the discovery deadline 

for June 26, 2020 and the dispositive motion deadline for September 11, 2020. (ECF No. 26.)

Case 2:19-cv-00974-KJM-KJN Document 28 Filed 03/12/20 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

Defendants request an order modifying the scheduling order to vacate all existing 

scheduling and discovery deadlines and limiting discovery to the issue of administrative 

exhaustion until the court rules on defendants’ forthcoming summay judgment motion which will 

be made on the grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to his First 

Amendment retaliation and state law retaliation claims. Defendants argue that a decision on 

exhaustion as to plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation and state law retaliation claims will 

potentially eliminate the need for discovery on many of the issues and allegations in plaintiff’s 

first amended complaint. Defendants state that they will file the motion on the issue of 

exhaustion of plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims and state law retaliation claims 

within thirty days of the court’s order on the instant motion. 

A party may seek a protective order that stays discovery pending resolution of a 

potentially dispositive motion. Mlejnecky v. Olympus Imaging America, Inc., 2011 WL 489743,

at * 5 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (citing Wenger v. Monroe, 282 F.3d 1068, 1077 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming 

district court's grant of protective order staying discovery pending resolution of motion to dismiss 

filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6))). 

District courts look unfavorably upon blanket stays of discovery when a potentially 

dispositive motion is pending. Id. at 6. A motion for protective order seeking to preclude 

discovery must be supported by “good cause” and a “strong showing.” Id.

Federal district courts in California have applied a two-part test when evaluating a request 

to stay. Id. “First, the pending motion must be potentially dispositive of the entire case, or at 

least dispositive on the issue at which discovery is aimed.” Id. “Second, the court must 

determine whether the pending, potentially dispositive motion can be decided absent additional 

discovery.” Id. “Discovery should proceed if either prong of this test is not met.” Id.

“District courts have also consistently found that a judge deciding whether to issue a stay 

of discovery should take a ‘peek’ at the merits of the potentially dispositive motion in evaluating 

whether a stay should issue.” Id. at 8 (citing Quest Commc'ns Corp v. Herakles, LLC., 2007 WL 

2288299, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2007); Seven Springs Ltd. Partnership v. Fox Capital Management 

Corp., 2007 WL 1146607, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2007); GTE Wireless, Inc. v. Qualcom, 192 F.R.D. 

Case 2:19-cv-00974-KJM-KJN Document 28 Filed 03/12/20 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

284, 286 (S.D. Cal. 2000)).

Defendants’ motion to stay discovery is denied because defendants failed to file the 

summary judgment motion on which the pending motion to stay is based. The undersigned 

cannot evaluate the pending motion to stay without taking a “peek” at the merits of the potentially 

dispositive summary judgment motion.

Moreover, the pending motion appears overbroad. Defendants seek to stay discovery as to 

the merits of all of plaintiff’s claims, including plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and related state 

law claims. According to defendants, the summary judgment motion they plan to file does not 

argue that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to his Eighth Amendment and 

related state law claims. 

For the reasons discussed above, defendants’ motion to stay discovery is denied without 

prejudice to its refiling once defendants file the motion for summary judgment based on alleged 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion to stay discovery (ECF 

No. 27) is denied without prejudice.

Dated: March 12, 2020

Wit974.mod

Case 2:19-cv-00974-KJM-KJN Document 28 Filed 03/12/20 Page 3 of 3