Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01566/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01566-19/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kim Erb
Defendant
David French
Defendant
Marty Heath
Defendant
John Murray
Defendant
Ernie Peters
Defendant
Deborah Stampfli
Plaintiff
Steve J. Stump
Defendant
Susanville Sanitary District
Defendant

Document Text:

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

----oo0oo----

DEBORAH STAMPFLI, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUSANVILLE SANITARY DISTRICT, a 

political subdivision of the 

State of California; STEVE J. 

STUMP, in his individual and 

official capacities; JOHN 

MURRAY, in his individual and 

official capacities; ERNIE 

PETERS, in his individual and 

official capacities; DAVID 

FRENCH, in his individual and 

official capacities; KIM ERB, in 

his individual and official 

capacities; MARTY HEATH, in his 

individual and official 

capacities; DOES I-V, inclusive; 

BLACK & WHITE CORPORATIONS I-V; 

and ABLE & BAKER COMPANIES, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-01566 WBS DMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO LIFT STAY FOR 

LIMITED DISCOVERY1

1 The motion is decided on the papers without oral 

argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).

Case 2:20-cv-01566-WBS-DMC Document 129 Filed 05/31/23 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

----oo0oo----

Defendant Steve J. Stump has appealed this court’s 

denial of his motion for summary judgment on the issue of 

qualified immunity. (See Docket Nos. 113, 114, 117). This court 

recently granted defendant’s unopposed motion to stay the case 

pending appeal. (Docket No. 123.) Having failed to file an 

opposition to defendant’s motion to stay, plaintiff now moves to 

partially lift the stay in order to conduct limited discovery, 

namely the deposition of non-party witness John Murray. (Pl.’s 

Mot. (Docket No. 124).)

The court concludes that plaintiff’s counsel has failed 

to act diligently in obtaining the Murray deposition over the 

past seven months, despite counsel’s longstanding awareness of 

Mr. Murray’s health problems. Accordingly, the court declines to 

exercise its discretion to modify its previous order to permit

plaintiff’s attorney to take Mr. Murray’s deposition while this 

matter is pending on appeal.2 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to lift 

the stay to conduct limited discovery (Docket No. 124) be, and 

the same hereby is, DENIED.

Dated: May 30, 2023

2 At any rate, the court doubts whether a third 

deposition will prove fruitful, given that Mr. Murray was unable 

to complete the first two depositions due to his confusion and 

inability to answer questions. 

Case 2:20-cv-01566-WBS-DMC Document 129 Filed 05/31/23 Page 2 of 2