United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery (R.
Doc. 71) filed on June 5, 2017. The Motion is opposed. (R.
Doc. 73). Defendant has filed a Reply. (R. Doc. 78).
before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File
Sur-Opposition to Stay Discovery (R. Doc. 76) filed on June
December 14, 2015, Sede Baker (“Plaintiff”)
initiated this action, alleging that while incarcerated at
the Louisiana State Penitentiary (“LSP”) a prison
guard identified as “Sergeant Ephia” violated
Plaintiff's civil rights by allowing another inmate into
his cell who attacked and injured him. (R. Doc. 1).
Court allowed Plaintiff to conduct limited third-party
discovery to obtain the last known address of the named
defendant (R. Doc. 16) and, having learned that the named
defendant was not located in the Louisiana Department of
Corrections (“DOC”) records, to conduct limited
third-party discovery to obtain the identity of the correct
defendant (R. Doc. 28).
22, 2016, the Court allowed Plaintiff to file an Amended
Complaint for Damages (R. Doc. 35) naming Sergeant
Tyranissuin Ephion (“Defendant”) as the correct
defendant. (R. Doc. 36). Plaintiff then served a subpoena on
the DOC to obtain Defendant's last known address. (R.
Doc. 42). Defendant was served on November 14, 2016. (R. Doc.
proceeding pro se at the time, answered the
allegations in the Amended Complaint. (R. Doc. 51;
see R. Doc. 55).
April 6, 2017, the Court issued an order allowing counsel to
enroll for Defendant. (R. Doc. 60). Defendant then filed an
Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses. (R. Doc. 68).
5, 2017, the Court issued a Scheduling Order providing, among
other things, that the deadline to complete all discovery is
November 30, 2017; the deadline to file dispositive motions
is December 29, 2017; and that trial will commence on July
16, 2018. (R. Doc. 65).
25, 2017, Defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis
that Plaintiff failed to exhaust all available administrative
remedies prior to filing the suit as required by 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a). (R. Doc. 70). Plaintiff has opposed the
motion. (R. Doc. 72). There is no dispute between the parties
that on March 29, 2015, LSP received an Administrative Remedy
Procedure (“ARP”), assigned ARP No.
LSP-2015-0807, from the Plaintiff regarding this lawsuit as
it pertains “to an alleged breach of security.”
(R. Doc. 70-2 at 1; R. Doc. 72-1 at 1). Defendant's
motion for summary judgment is pending before the district
5, 2017, Defendant filed her motion to stay discovery. (R.
26(c) allows the Court to issue a protective order after a
showing of good cause “to protect a party or person
from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1). Rule 26(c)'s
“good cause” requirement indicates that the party
seeking a protective order has the burden “to show the
necessity of its issuance, which contemplates a particular
and specific demonstration of fact as distinguished from
stereotyped and conclusory statements.” In re Terra
Int'l, Inc., 134 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 1998)
(quoting United States v. Garrett, 571 F.2d 1323,
1326 n. 3 (5th Cir. 1978)). “A trial court has broad
discretion and inherent power to stay discovery until
preliminary questions that may dispose of the case are
determined.” Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 581,