ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DE 26)

ANTHONY P. PATTI, Magistrate Judge.

Judge Steeh has referred this case to me for all pretrial proceedings. Currently pending before the Court are Defendants' September 6, 2017 motion for summary judgment (DE 25) and same-day motion for protective order (DE 26). Plaintiff has filed a combined response (DE 27), as well as an amendment to the response (DE 28).

By a report and recommendation entered this date, I have recommended that the Court: (1) grant Defendants' September 6, 2017 motion for summary judgment to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's claims for money damages against Defendants in their official capacities; but, (2) deny it to the extent it seeks dismissal of the claims against them on the basis of failure to exhaust. Meanwhile, the motion for protective order attaches Plaintiff's August 2017 discovery requests (DE 26 at 14-25), as well as the subpoena to Winn and the response thereto (DE 26 at 26-35), and requests that the Court "enter a protective order staying discovery until it rules on their dispositive motion[,]" (DE 26 at 11). Thus, the necessity for discovery in this case hinges upon whether the Court accepts and/or adopts this recommendation.

Upon consideration, Defendants' September 6, 2017 motion for protective order is GRANTED. Discovery is STAYED pending this Court's ruling upon Defendant's September 6, 2017 motion for summary judgment (DE 25). The stay of discovery will automatically lift once the Court issues its ruling. It goes without saying that at least some portion of the case will have to survive in order for discovery to be at issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.