Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00854/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00854-3/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

GIBBS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00854-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

(ECF No. 32)

Plaintiff Lawrence Christopher Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action 

proceeds against Defendants Gibbs and Hardy for the alleged excessive force incident of 

February 6, 2014.

On September 4, 2019, Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that 

Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform 

Act. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff filed his opposition on October 15, 2019. (ECF No. 30.) 

Defendants filed their reply on October 21, 2019. (ECF No. 31.) The motion for summary 

judgment is fully briefed and is pending before the Court.

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion for protective order, filed December 16, 

2019. (ECF No. 32.) Defendants argue that they should be relieved of the obligation to respond 

to discovery until forty-five days after the Court rules on the pending motion for summary 

Case 1:18-cv-00854-DAD-BAM Document 34 Filed 01/16/20 Page 1 of 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

2

judgment, if necessary, as the motion may resolve the case in its entirety. (Id.) On January 15, 

2020, Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for protective order. 

(ECF No. 33.)

The district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 

control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North 

American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). The party seeking the stay bears the burden of 

establishing the need to stay the action. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708.

In light of Plaintiff’s statement of non-opposition, and the possibility that a ruling on the 

pending motion for summary judgment may resolve this case in its entirety, the Court finds a stay 

of discovery is appropriate.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for protective order, (ECF No. 32), is HEREBY 

GRANTED. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s November 20, 2019 discovery requests 

within forty-five days following the Court’s ruling on the pending motion for summary judgment, 

if the ruling does not resolve this action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00854-DAD-BAM Document 34 Filed 01/16/20 Page 2 of 2