ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

(ECF No. 44)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR STAY OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 50)

BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Thomas Goolsby is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendant Kimberly Holland for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.

I. Relevant Procedural History

On June 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed his first motion to compel discovery and for sanctions. (ECF No. 26.) That motion was granted in part, and the Court ordered certain discovery be provided, and that the parties meet and confer in writing on certain issues. (ECF No. 45.) On April 26, 2016, Defendant requested an extension of time to provide the discovery responses, (ECF No. 48), which the Court granted, (ECF No. 51). Those responses are currently due on or before June 30, 2016.

On February 16, 2016, Plaintiff also filed a second motion to compel, which is pending. (ECF No. 39.)

On March 10, 2016, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff's response to that motion is due June 15, 2016, by this Court's order. (ECF No. 46.)

Currently before the Court are motions to stay filed by both parties; that is, one filed on March 10, 2016 by Defendant, (ECF No. 44.), and one filed on April 19, 2016 by Plaintiff, (ECF No. 50.) Neither party has yet responded to the other party's motion for stay, but the Court does not find any responses necessary at this time, as the parties will not be prejudiced by the consideration of their motions. Local Rule 230(l).

II. Parties' Motions for Stay

Defendant seeks a motion to stay all discovery in this action, pending a ruling on the motion for summary judgment and Defendant's concurrent request that Plaintiff be required to post security as a vexatious litigant. (ECF No. 44-1.) Plaintiff seeks a stay of Defendant's motion for summary judgment, arguing that he requires certain discovery to be provided in order to properly oppose the summary judgment motion, including discovery which is the subject of his pending second motion to compel. (ECF No. 50.)

In the meantime, the Court has been informed by the parties that they seek a settlement conference, which has been tentatively scheduled for June 21, 2016. The Court finds the case will benefit from such a conference, and separate orders will issue on that matter. The upcoming settlement conference also impacts the parties' current requests for a stay of these proceedings.

A district court "has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket." Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). The party seeking the stay bears the burden of establishing the need to stay the action. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708.

In this case, the Court finds a short-term stay of all non-settlement proceedings until June 30, 2016 is necessary to allow the parties to focus on the upcoming settlement conference. The parties' time and resources are better spent on the settlement negotiations, rather than causing both the parties and the Court to expend resources on discovery and motion practice, which may not ultimately be necessary if the matter is resolved through settlement.

Following the outcome of the settlement conference in this matter, the Court will issue a scheduling order, if necessary, setting deadlines for briefing on the various pending motions and outstanding discovery matters, and seeking status reports from the parties, as needed.

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

IT IS SO ORDERED.