Free Motion to Stay - District Court of California - California

Case 5:07-cv-04920-JF

Document 46

Filed 07/02/2008

Page 1 of 4

1 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California 2 DAVID S. CHANEY Chief Assistant Attorney General 3 FRANCEST.GRUNDER Senior Assistant Attorney General 4 THOMAS S. PATTERSON Supervising Deputy Attorney General 5 TRACE O. MAIORINO, State Bar No. 179749 Deputy Attorney General 6 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 7 Telephone: (415) 703-5975 Fax: ·(415) 703-5843 8 Email: [email protected] 9 Attorneys for Defendants Lemon, Ayers, Tilton, Ebert, Ortiz, Plymesser, Robinson, Ratliff, and Grannis 10
11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13

SAN JOSE DIVISION 14 15 GREGORY TABAREZ, Plaintiff, C 07-4920 JF DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR A STAY OF DISCOVERY PENDING RULING ON DEFENDANTS' . MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

16
17 18 19 20 21 22

v.
JAMES TILTON, et at, Defendants.

TO PLAINTIFF GREGORY TABAREZ, IN PRO SE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendants Lemon, Ayers, Tilton, Ebert, Ortiz,

23 Plymesser, Robinson, Ratliff, and Grannis (Defendants) move this Court for an order staying all 24 discovery until the Court has ruled on Defendants" motion for summary judgment. 25 This motion is based on this notice of motion, the supporting memorandum of points and

26 authorities, the attached declaration, and the Court's file in this action.

27 III 28 III
Defs.' Not. Mot. & Mot. Stay Disc. Pending Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. Tabarez v. Tilton et al. e 07-4920 JF

1

Case 5:07-cv-04920-JF

Document 46

Filed 07/02/2008

Page 2 of 4

1 2
3

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On September 21,2007, Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed his complaint pro se

4 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials at San Quentin and against officials at the 5 Correctional Training Facility (CTF). In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated 6 his rights under the First Amendment because he was transferred from San Quentin to CTF. 7 (CompI.) 8 At the time of the allegations in the complaint, Defendant Tilton was the Secretary of

9 CDCR, Defendant Ayers was the Warden at San Quentin, and Defendant Lemon served as the 10 Chief Deputy Warden at San Quentin. In addition, Defendant Ebert served as a Correctional 11 Counselor I who sat on the Unit Classification Committee (DCC) that referred Plaintiff for a 12 transfer to CTF. Once at CTF, Defendants Plymesser, Robinson, and Ratliff sat on another UCC, 13 and Defendant Ortiz reviewed an administrative appeal submitted by Plaintiff. Finally, 14 Defendant Grannis served as the Director of the Inmate Appeals Branch that denied Plaintiffs 15 inmate appeals. 16 The Court foundthat Plaintiff had stated a cognizable claim of retaliationagainst these

17 Defendants and allowed Plaintiff to proceed with his § 1983 action. (Order of Service at 2.) The 18 Court directed Defendants to file a dispositive motion no later than June 5, 2008. (Id.) 19 Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that they did not violate 20 Plaintiffs First Amendment rights and that they are entitled to qualified immunity. 21

ARGUMENT I. Discovery in this Case Should be Stayed Pending a Ruling on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on the Threshold Question of Qualified Immunity.

22
23

The Supreme Court has made it clear that a district court should stay discovery until the 24 threshold question of qualified immunity is settled. Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 25 (1998) ("If the defendant does plead the immunity defense, the district court should resolve that 26 threshold question before permitting discovery"); Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 646 n.6 27

(1987); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). In Anderson, the Court reiterated that
28
Defs.' Not. Mot. & Mot. Stay Disc. Pending Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. Tabarez v. Tilton et al. e 07-4920 JF

2

Case 5:07-cv-04920-JF

Document 46

Filed 07/02/2008

Page 3 of 4

1 "[o]ne of the purposes of the Harlow qualified immunity standard is to protect public officials 2 from the broad-ranging discovery that can be peculiarly disruptive of effective government."

3 Anderson, 483 U.S. at 646 (internal quotation marks omitted).

·4

"A trial court has broad discretion and inherent power to stay discovery until preliminary

5 questions that may dispose of the case are determined." Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 581,583 (5th 6 Cir. 1987). The Ninth Circuit has held, "[ a] stay of discovery pending the resolution of another

7 issue is proper if discovery would not affect a decision on that issue." Little v. City ofSeattle, 8 863 F.2d 681,685 (9th Cir. 1988). 9 To require Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs further discovery at this time would defeat

10 the important basis of the qualified immunity standard. A stay in discovery would allow for the 11 issue of qualified immunity to be disposed of before Defendants are required to respond to any 12 additional discovery, including discovery motions. A stay will not interfere with the decision on

13 Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has had the opportunity to
14 propound discovery on Defendants and receive responses _ his discovery requests. (Decl. to 15 Maiorino 1 2.) On May 2,2008, Defendant Ortiz served his responses to Plaintiffs 16 interrogatories, request for production of documents, and requests for admissions. (Id.) On May 17 30,2008 Defendants Tilton and Ebert served their responses to Plaintiffs interrogatories, request
r:

18

for production of documents, and requests for admissions. (Id.) On June 2, 2008, Defendant

19 Plymesser served her responses to Plaintiffs interrogatories, request for production of 20 documents, and requests for admissions. (Id.) On June 23, 2008, Defendants Ratliff, Robinson,

21- Ayers, and Lemon served their responses to Plaintiffs interrogatories, request for production of 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 documents, and requests for admissions. (Id.) Defendant Grannis served her responses to Plaintiffs interrogatories and request for admissions on June 23, 2008. (Id.) As such, Plaintiff will suffer no prejudice as a result of a stay of discovery in this matter. /// /// /// ///
Defs.' Not. Mot. & Mot. Stay Disc. Pending Defs.' Mot. Summ.

J.

Tabarez v. Tilton et al. e 07-4920 JF

3

Case 5:07-cv-04920-JF

Document 46

Filed 07/02/2008

Page 4 of 4

1

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant this motion to

2

3 stay discovery pending the Court's ruling on Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the 4 threshold question ofqualified immunity.
5

Dated: July 2, 2008 6 Respectfully submitted, EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California DAVID S. CHANEY Chief Assistant Attorney General FRANCEST.GRUNDER Senior Assistant Attorney General THOMAS S. PATTERSON Supervising Deputy Attorney General

7
8

9 10
11

12

13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
20118374.wpd

,~;ta&W;~

TRACE O. MAIORINO· Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants Lemon, Ayers, Tilton, Ebert, Ortiz, Plymesser, Robinson, Ratliff, and Grannis

SF2008400989

Defs.' Not. Mot. & Mot. Stay Disc. Pending Defs.' Mot. Surnm. J.

Tabarez v. Tilton et al. e 07-4920 JF

4