Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Theodore Britton Yates v. C King

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 29, 2011

THEODORE BRITTON YATES,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
C KING, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY(ECF No. 60)

Plaintiff Theodore Britton Yates ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendant King for violation of the Eighth Amendment. On February 22, 2011, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and a motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 45, 46.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 15, 2011, stating that he did not file a grievance because he would have been beaten up by correctional officers had he filed a appeal against Defendant King. (ECF No. 59.) On April 27, 2011, Defendants filed a request to stay discovery pending the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 60.)

"Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought . . . , and for good cause shown, the court . . . may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The Court enjoys "wide discretion in controlling discovery." Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1989).

Based upon a review of the motion and opposition, the Court finds that it is in the interest of justice to shield Defendant from the expense and burden responding to any discovery requests pending resolution of his motions. In as much as the Court can foresee no prejudice to Plaintiff in light of the availability of Rule 56(f) and in light of the fact that discovery will be reopened should Defendant fail to prevail on his motion, Defendant's request shall be granted and discovery shall be stayed by this order.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's request that discovery be stayed is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110429

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.