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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CLINTON HECK,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK STERN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 06-5030 RJB/KLS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

 STERN’S MOTION TO STAY 

 DISCOVERY

This civil rights action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. The plaintiff has been

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. # 7). Before the court is Defendant Stern’s

motion to stay discovery pending the court’s resolution of defendant’s motion to dismiss. (Dkt. #

45). For the reasons stated below, the court finds that the motion should be granted.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 7, 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint naming Defendant Stern and others as

defendants. (Dkt. # 7). On May 23, 2006, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, naming additional

new defendants and adding claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Dkt. # 24). Other

than Defendant Stern, no defendants have been served. By Order dated July 18, 2006, plaintiff was

advised to provide service forms and copies by August 18, 2006 for service of the Amended

Complaint upon the additional defendants. (Dkt. # 51). The Pretrial Scheduling Order entered in

this matter fixes the discovery deadline as December 21, 2006. (Dkt. # 43). Since filing his

Amended Complaint, plaintiff filed a second preliminary injunction (Dkt. # 23), a motion for

Case 3:06-cv-05030-RJB Document 53 Filed 08/02/06 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 ORDER - 2

summary judgment (Dkt. # 35) and a motion for default (Dkt. # 38). These motions are the subject

of pending Reports and Recommendations. (Dkt. # 50, 52) . 

Defendant Stern advises that plaintiff has submitted multiple discovery requests and moves

the court for an order staying his responses until resolution of his motion to dismiss. 

DISCUSSION

The court has broad discretionary powers to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863

F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Upon showing of good cause, the court may deny or limit discovery. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26( c). A court may relieve a party of the burdens of discovery while a dispositive

motion is pending. DiMartini v. Ferrin, 889 F.2d 922 (9th Cir. 1989), amended at 906 F.2d 465 (9th

Cir. 1990) Rae v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1984). When government officials raise the

issue of qualified immunity discovery should not proceed until this threshold issues is resolved by the

court. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S. Ct. 2727, 2738 (1982); Anderson v.

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 646 n. 6, 107 S. Ct. 3034, 3042 n. 6 (1987), DiMartini v. Ferrin, supra, 889

F.2d at 926. 

Plaintiff has filed no objection to defendant’s motion to stay discovery. (See Dkt. # 47, 48). 

The court may consider plaintiff’s failure as an admission that defendant’s motion has merit. CR

7(b)(2). In addition, the above cited authorities, and the early stages of this litigation all mitigate in

favor of a stay pending resolution of the threshold issue of whether plaintiff has exhausted his

administrative remedies. 

Accordingly, all discovery in this matter shall be STAYED pending further order of this

Court.

DATED this 2nd day of August, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05030-RJB Document 53 Filed 08/02/06 Page 2 of 2