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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMON MIKIANGELO BERRY,

III,

Plaintiff,

 v.

R. METCALFE,

Defendant. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

No. C 09-2027 MMC (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION, TO

FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL, AND

TO STAY DISCOVERY; GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME TO OPPOSE DISPOSITIVE

MOTION; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

(Docket Nos. 14, 22, 26, 27)

On May 8, 2009, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison

and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

Court addresses herein several motions filed by the respective parties to said action.

1. Motions for Extensions of Time

Good cause appearing,

a. Defendant’s motion for an extension of time to file a motion for summary

judgment or other dispositive motion is hereby GRANTED, and the motion for summary

judgment filed by defendant on April 12, 2010 is deemed timely. 

b. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file opposition, styled as a “motion

to vacate” the court-ordered deadline, is hereby GRANTED. Within thirty days of the date

this order is filed, plaintiff shall file with the Court and serve on defendant’s counsel

opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant shall file a reply to

Case 3:09-cv-02027-MMC Document 30 Filed 06/29/10 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

plaintiff’s opposition within fifteen days of the date such opposition is filed.

2. Motion to Stay Discovery

Also pending before the Court is defendant’s motion to stay discovery until the Court

has ruled on the motion for summary judgment. Specifically, defendant requests that

discovery be stayed because defendant has moved for qualified immunity. As a general

rule, a district court should stay discovery until the issue of qualified immunity is resolved. 

See Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800,

818 (1982). Accordingly, defendant’s motion to stay discovery until the Court has ruled on

the issue of qualified immunity, as raised in defendant’s motion for summary judgment, is

hereby GRANTED. 

3. Motion for Sealing Order

Lastly, defendant moves the Court to review in camera and file under seal the

“Confidential Declaration of S. Henley in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment” and accompanying exhibit. Defendant contends the release of such documents,

which include names of confidential sources and details regarding confidential

investigations of violence at Salinas Valley State Prison, could endanger the safety and

security of other inmates and officers, as well as that of the institution. The Court having

reviewed the subject declaration and exhibit, and good cause appearing, defendant’s motion

is hereby GRANTED. As requested by defendant, the Clerk of the Court shall file the

documents under seal until the conclusion of this case and any appellate proceedings, at

which time counsel for defendant will request the return of the documents. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 14, 22, 26 and 27.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 29, 2010

_____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02027-MMC Document 30 Filed 06/29/10 Page 2 of 2