Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00959/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00959-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcus L. Harrison
Plaintiff
J. Sample
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS L. HARRISON,

Plaintiff,

v.

Officer J. SAMPLE,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-959 SI (pr)

ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY AND

EXTENDING DEADLINES 

Defendant has filed a motion to stay discovery pending a decision on his motion for

summary judgment in which he asserts entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the defense

of qualified immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that a district court

should stay discovery until the threshold question of qualified immunity is settled. See

Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 646

n.6 (1987); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Accordingly, the court GRANTS

defendant's motion to stay discovery. (Docket # 22.) All discovery is STAYED until

defendant's motion for summary judgment raising the qualified immunity defense is decided by

the court or the court orders otherwise. 

Plaintiff might have been waiting for discovery responses to prepare his opposition to

defendant's motion; the ruling in the preceding paragraph means that discovery responses will

not be made at this time, so the court will extend the deadlines on defendant's motion for

summary judgment. The court now sets the following new briefing schedule: Plaintiff must file

Case 3:07-cv-00959-SI Document 26 Filed 12/03/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

and serve on defense counsel his opposition to the motion no later than December 28, 2007.

Defendant must file and serve his reply brief, if any, no later than January 11, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2007 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00959-SI Document 26 Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 2