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.

Sylester Williams v. M. Camps

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 9, 2012

SYLESTER WILLIAMS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
M. CAMPS, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

ORDER AMENDING ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

Docs. 53, 48

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW MOTION FOR SUBPOENA

Docs. 56, 52

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO OPEN DISCOVERY

Doc. 56

ORDER FINDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR STAY MOOT FOR REVIEW

Doc. 51

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 30, 2012, the Court granted Defendant's motion to stay discovery pending resolution of Defendant's motion to dismiss. Doc. 53. However, as Defendants noted in their motion to withdraw their motion to stay discovery, discovery has not been opened because this Court has not issued a scheduling order. Doc. 49. The Court will only issue a scheduling order, opening discovery, if the Court denies Defendants' pending motion to dismiss. Doc. 35. Therefore, the Court AMENDS the order granting Defendants' motion to stay discovery to reflect that a stay is unnecessary, as discovery has not yet been opened.

On February 6, 2012, Plaintiff moved to open discovery. Doc. 56. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), "[u]nless otherwise limited by court order . . . parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." (emphasis added). By the Court's first informational order dated August 5, 2010, the Court ordered that "[n]o discovery may be conducted without court permission until an answer is filed an the court issues the discovery order." (emphasis in original). Doc. 3. Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to conduct discovery until directed to do so by the Court. In this case, there has been no order issued by the Court which permits the parties to conduct discovery. Given that resolution of Defendants' motion to dismiss may conclude this action and render any need for discovery unnecessary, Plaintiff's motion to open discovery is DENIED.*fn1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The order dated January 30, 2012 is AMENDED to reflect that a stay of discovery is unnecessary, as the Court has not issued a scheduling order;

2. Plaintiff's motion to withdraw motion for subpoena is GRANTED;

3. Plaintiff's motion to open discovery is DENIED; and

4. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to respond to Defendants' motion to stay discovery is MOOT for review.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


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.