Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01814/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01814-49/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On May 10, 2016, Defendants moved for court intervention due to Plaintiff’s continued 

inappropriate and sexually harassing conduct (Doc. 196) and to modify the scheduling order so as to 

stay all discovery and deadlines in this action pending a ruling on their motion (Doc. 198). 

The time for Plaintiff to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ 

motion for court intervention has not yet passed. L.R. 230(l). However, if that motion is granted, no 

further action will be required for any aspect of this case. Thus, it is appropriate to stay all discovery 

and deadlines in this action until Defendants’ motion for court intervention is determined.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order and to stay all discovery and 

pending deadlines in this action, filed on May 10, 2016, is GRANTED;

2. All discovery is STAYED in this action

3. All deadlines are VACATED except:

LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. GOSS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01814-LJO-JLT (PC) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER 

AND STAYING DISCOVERY AND 

DEADLINES PENDING RULING ON 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR COURT 

INTERVENTION 

(Doc. 198)

Case 1:10-cv-01814-DAD-JLT Document 199 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 2
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

a) Plaintiff’s opposition or notice of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion 

for court intervention (Doc. 196) is due within 21 days of the date it was 

filed; and 

b) Defendants’ may thereafter file their reply in accordance with the Local 

Rules if desired; and

4. If Defendants’ motion for court intervention is not granted, the Court will issue a 

further scheduling order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01814-DAD-JLT Document 199 Filed 05/23/16 Page 2 of 2