Burton et al v. Jackson et al
Filing
40
ORDER Staying all Discovery in this matter, including discovery motions (ECF Nos. 21 , 22 , 30 , and 35 ) pending further order of this Court, signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom. (GMR- cc: pltf)
<![CDATA[
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
3
4
5
LONNIE LEE BURTON,
6
7
8
9
10
11
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. C12-5104 RBL-KLS
ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY
v.
PAT GLEBE, ERIC JACKSON, KEVIN
SHANAHAN, DAVID POE, TERA
MCELRAVY, and THOMAS L.
L'HEUREUX,
Defendants.
12
Presently pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss filed on October 16,
13
2012. ECF No. 28. The motion is noted for consideration on November 16, 2012. Id.
14
Defendants move for dismissal based, in part, on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative
15
remedies. Id. Also pending are Plaintiff’s motions to depose other inmates (ECF No. 21) and
16
motion to compel (ECF No. 22) filed on September 24, 2012. On October 24 and 29, 2012,
17
Plaintiff filed a motion to extend the discovery deadline, and additional motions to depose other
18
inmates and to compel discovery. ECF Nos. 30, 31, and 35. Defendants did not oppose an
19
extension of the discovery deadline (ECF No. 37), and on November 6, 2012, the Court extended
20
the discovery deadline until December 3, 2012. ECF No. 39. In their response to the motion to
21
compel, Defendants ask that due to the sensitive nature of many of the materials Plaintiff is
22
requesting, the Court should defer its ruling until after it considers their pending motion to
23
dismiss. ECF No. 38, at 3.
24
ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY- 1
1
2
3
4
DISCUSSION
The court has broad discretionary powers to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle,
5 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Upon showing of good cause, the court may deny or limit
6 discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26( c). A court may relieve a party of the burdens of discovery while
7 a dispositive motion is pending. DiMartini v. Ferrin, 889 F.2d 922 (9th Cir. 1989), amended at
8 906 F.2d 465 (9th Cir. 1990) Rae v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1984).
9
In their motion to dismiss, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed
10 because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Thus, neither the parties nor this Court
11 should be burdened with the expense of discovery and discovery motions until it is determined
12 that Plaintiff’s lawsuit shall go forward.
13
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
14
(1)
All discovery in this matter, including discovery motions (ECF Nos. 21, 22, 30
15 and 35) shall be STAYED pending further order of this Court. The Clerk is directed to remove
16 ECF Nos. 21, 22, 30 and 35 from the Court’s calendar.
17
(2)
The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to counsel for
18 Defendants.
19
DATED this 7th day of November, 2012.
20
A
21
Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge
22
23
24
ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY- 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?
