Centofanti v. The State of Nevada ex rel The NDOC

[2] 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA [5] ALFRED CENTOFANTI, 6 Case No. 2:21-cv-00024-RFB-NJK Plaintiff(s), 7 Order v. 8 [Docket Nos 77, 82] THE STATE OF NEVADA EX REL THE 9 NDOC, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. Docket No. 77.1 12 Defendants filed a response in opposition and countermotion to stay discovery. Docket Nos. 81, 13 82. Plaintiff filed a reply to the motion to compel, Docket No. 83, and a response to Defendants’ 14 countermotion. Docket No. 84. Defendants filed a reply to their countermotion. Docket No. 85. 15 The motions are properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons 16 discussed below, Defendants’ countermotion to stay discovery is DENIED without prejudice and 17 Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections and brought 20 this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for claims related to his confinement. See Docket No. 21. On 21 August 22, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to file a second amended complaint prior to 22 Defendants’ deadline to respond to the complaint. Docket No. 80. 23 The Court entered a scheduling order following Defendants’ first appearance in the case. 24 See Docket No. 45. The parties were to complete discovery by August 14, 2023. See id. During 25 the discovery period, Plaintiff propounded several discovery requests on Defendants, to which [27] 1 “Courts in this circuit have an obligation to give a liberal construction to the filings of pro 28 se litigants, especially when they are civil rights claims by inmates.” Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013). 1 they objected on the basis of qualified immunity. See Docket No. 77 at 17-47. The parties met 2 and conferred on August 4, 2023, and were unable to reach an agreement as to the discovery 3 responses. Docket No. 77 at 11. The Cout has extended the discovery period in an order issued 4 concurrently herewith. 5 II. STANDARDS 6 The Court has broad discretionary power to control discovery. See, e.g., Little v. City of 7 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide 8 for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” 9 Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). Discovery should proceed 10 absent a “strong showing” to the contrary. Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 11 F.R.D. 554 , 556 (D. Nev. 1997). The case law in this District makes clear that requests to stay 12 discovery may be granted when: (1) the underlying motion is potentially dispositive in scope and 13 effect; (2) the underlying motion can be decided without additional discovery; and (3) the Court 14 has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the underlying motion and is convinced that the 15 plaintiff will be unable to prevail. Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 16 2013). The Court is guided in its analysis by the objectives in Rule 1 to secure a just, speedy, and 17 inexpensive determination of cases. Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 602 . 18 As to motions to compel, “[t]he discovery process in theory should be cooperative and 19 largely unsupervised by the district court.” Sali v. Corona Reg’l Med. Ctr., 884 F.3d 1218 , 1219 20 (9th Cir. 2018). When an amicable resolution to a discovery dispute cannot be attained, however, 21 a party seeking discovery may move the Court to issue an order compelling that discovery. Fed. 22 R. Civ. P. 37(a). The party seeking to avoid discovery generally bears the burden of showing why 23 that discovery should not be permitted. V5 Techs. v. Switch, Ltd., 334 F.R.D. 306 , 309 (D. Nev. 24 2019).2 [25] 2 “The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be 26 allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.” Cable & Computer Tech., Inc. v. Lockheed Saunders, Inc., 175 F.R.D. 646, 650 (N.D. Cal. 1997); see also, 27 e.g., Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975) (“Under the liberal discovery principles of the Federal Rules defendants were required to carry a heavy burden of showing why 28 discovery was denied”); V5 Technologies, 334 F.R.D. at 309-10 (“The party seeking to avoid discovery bears the burden of showing why that discovery should not be permitted”); F.T.C. v. 1 III. ANALYSIS 2 Plaintiff’s motion seeks an order compelling Defendants’ responses to discovery. 3 Defendants’ countermotion seeks an order staying discovery pending the resolution of the issue of 4 qualified immunity. 5 A. Countermotion to Stay Discovery 6 Defendants move the Court to stay discovery until this Court resolves the issue of qualified 7 immunity in Defendants’ “anticipated” motion to dismiss. Docket No. 82 at 1. However, 8 Defendants’ motion is premature, as the issue of qualified immunity is not currently pending before 9 the Court. See Docket. As Defendants conceded in their countermotion, they have yet to respond 10 to Plaintiff’s amended complaint and intend to file a motion to dismiss based on the defense of 11 qualified immunity when the operative complaint is determined. See Docket No. 82 at 2. Because 12 there is no dispositive motion for the Court to evaluate, the Court cannot stay discovery at this 13 juncture. See Twin City Fire Insurance v. Employers Ins. Of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. 14 Nev. 1989 ) (“Finally, a pending Motion to Dismiss is not ordinarily a situation that in and of itself 15 would warrant a stay of discovery. Common examples of such situations, however, occur when 16 jurisdiction, venue, or immunity are preliminary issues”); see also Slocum v. Fowler, 2018 WL 17 4468998, at *3 (Sept. 8, 2018 D. Nev. 2018) (granting motion to stay discovery after taking a 18 preliminary peek at defendants’ pending motions to dismiss). Accordingly, Defendants’ motion 19 to stay discovery is DENIED as premature. 20 B. Motion to Compel 21 Plaintiff moves the Court to compel Defendants’ responses to discovery, which they have 22 objected to exclusively on the basis of qualified immunity. See Docket No. 77 at 17-48. 23 Defendants oppose the motion to compel on the same basis as their motion to stay discovery— 24 they want the Court to first resolve the issue of qualified immunity they intend to assert in their 25 anticipated motion to dismiss. See Docket No. 82 at 1. As stated above, however, there is currently [26] 27 AMG Servs., Inc., 291 F.R.D. 544, 553 (D. Nev. 2013) (“The party resisting discovery bears the burden of showing why a discovery request should be denied” (citation and internal quotations 28 omitted)). 1} no pending issue of qualified immunity before the Court. See Docket. Therefore, Defendants have 2|| failed to meet their burden of showing why the discovery requests should be denied. See V5 Techs, 3] 334 F.R.D. at 309. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel is GRANTED. 41IV. CONCLUSION 5 For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ motion to stay discovery is DENIED as 6] premature. Docket No. 82. Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendants’ responses to discovery is 7| GRANTED. Docket No. 77. Defendants must serve responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests 8|| by September 15, 2023. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: September 7, 2023 a A. i 40 De e-——., Nancy J. Koppe *. * 12 United States*Magistrate Judge 3 .