Blacher v. Diaz

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARLON BLACHER, Case No.: 20cv1270-LAB-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE MOTION TO STAY [DKT. 39] 14 RALPH DIAZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Defendants have previously been granted two applications to stay this case 18 pending Plaintiff Marlon Blacher’s return to California from Florida, where he is 19 currently in custody for various criminal matters. On February 25, 2021, 20 Defendants filed an ex parte application to stay the case indefinitely, citing 21 Blacher’s unknown return date to California and the need for more time to serve 22 discovery and depose Blacher. (Dkt. 24). Rather than stay the case indefinitely, 23 the Court stayed it for 90 days and ordered Defendants to investigate both 24 Blacher’s return date and remote deposition options. (Dkt. 28). On June 15, 2021, 25 Defendants filed a motion to extend the stay, which was set to expire on June 21, 26 2021, until November 1, 2021, citing largely the same reasons they articulated in 27 their first request. (Dkt. 36). This Court granted the extension request. (Dkt. 37). 28 1 Defendants now apply for a third extension until May 1, 2022. (Dkt. 39). They 2 explain that Defendants are still unable to depose Blacher because he is currently 3 in Florida and it remains unclear as to when Blacher will return to California. 4 Defendants also represent that the Florida jail where Blacher is located is unable 5 to accommodate a remote videoconference deposition due to limited equipment 6 and staff. They argue that their inability depose Blacher will greatly prejudice their 7 defense in this matter, and because they believe that Blacher is unlikely to return 8 to California for at least a few more months, they maintain that an extension of the 9 stay until May 2022 is reasonable. 10 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every 11 court to control disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and 12 effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 13 254 (1936). “The exertion of this power calls for the exercise of [] sound discretion.” 14 CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). In determining whether to 15 grant a stay, “the competing interests [that] will be affected by the granting or 16 refusal to grant a stay must be weighed.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 17 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing CMAX, Inc., 300 F.2d at 268). Those interests include: 18 (1) “the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay,” (2) “the 19 hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” and 20 (3) “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or 21 complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to 22 result from a stay.” Id. 23 The Court anticipates little to no damage will result from granting a limited 24 stay. Blacher is currently out-to-court in Florida, where he has additional hearings 25 and trials for various criminal matters, and he may find it challenging to prosecute 26 this case while engaged in unrelated court proceedings in another state. Requiring 27 the parties to go forward in this case without allowing them to conduct meaningful 28 discovery would pose hardship to both sides. The Court, therefore, GRANTS IN 1 PART Defendants’ ex parte motion to stay the case. The case is ORDERED 2 stayed until January 31, 2022. In the interim, Defendants must file monthly status 3 reports regarding their ongoing efforts to depose Blacher and to ascertain the date 4 of his return to California. In particular, to establish due diligence for any additional 5 extension of this stay, Defendants must explore the possibility of traveling to 6 Florida to depose Blacher and show cause why this alternative does not solve the 7 inaccessibility issue. On January 31, 2022, the stay will automatically expire unless 8 it has been extended in the meantime. Any motion to extend the stay further must 9 be supported by a showing of good cause, along with an estimate of when 10 discovery can resume and an explanation as to why Defendants are unable to 11 travel to Florida to conduct the deposition in person. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: October 28, 2021 15 Honorable Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28