Townsel v. Gahan et al
Filing
34
ORDER denying pltf's 23 Motion to Compel; granting dfts' 24 Motion to stay discovery pending resolution of dfts' motion for summary judgment by Hon. Brian A Tsuchida.(RS)cc Townsel
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8 JERRY UVARIUS TOWNSEL,
Plaintiff,
9
10
v.
11 TOMAS GAHAN, et al.,
12
13
14
Defendants.
Case No. C12-1165-RAJ-BAT
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL AND
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
PENDING RESOLUTION OF
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff moved to compel discovery, contending that defendants’ failure to respond to his
15 first request for production of documents was interfering with his ability to move for summary
16 judgment. (Dkt. 23.) Shortly thereafter, defendants moved for summary judgment based on
17 Heck v. Humphrey, absolute immunity, and qualified immunity, and for a stay of discovery
18 pending resolution of the summary-judgment motion. (Dkt. 24.) Defendants provided Rand
19 notice to plaintiff about the significance of a summary-judgment motion and the documentary
20 requirements of a party opposing such a motion. (Dkt. 29.) In response, plaintiff stated that he
21 has responded fully to the summary-judgment motion with citation to authenticated documents.
22 (Dkt. 30, at 1–2.) In fact, it is clear that plaintiff’s response to defendants’ summary-judgment
23 motion is a slightly modified version of a motion for summary judgment that plaintiff filed in
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
PENDING RESOLUTION OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1
1 July 2012. (Compare Dkt. 8 with Dkt. 30.) Plaintiff has not moved for additional time or
2 additional discovery materials in order to respond adequately to defendants’ motion for summary
3 judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
4
The Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery materials. (Dkt. 23.) Plaintiff
5 has not indicated how any of the materials requested would be relevant to the questions raised in
6 defendants’ motion for summary judgment regarding a Heck bar, absolute immunity, or qualified
7 immunity. The Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending resolution of
8 defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 24.) Plaintiff is advised that it would be
9 premature to file his own cross-motion for summary judgment on the merits prior to the Court’s
10 resolution of defendants’ current motion for summary judgment based on a Heck bar, absolute
11 immunity, and qualified immunity.
12
13
14
15
DATED this 13th day of November, 2012.
A
BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA
United States Magistrate Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
PENDING RESOLUTION OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
