Adams v. Homeward Residential, Inc.

Filing 32

ORDER denying 21 Motion to Stay Discovery; granting 23 Motion to Compel Discovery. To the extent Defendant has not done so, it is directed to supplement its discovery responses by January 31, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins on 1/15/2014. Copies to parties. (sdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANNIE B. ADAMS,

:
:
: CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-00329-WS-B
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
vs.
HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL,INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER
This

action

is

before

the

Court

on

Defendant

Homeward

Residential, Inc.’s Motion to Stay Discovery or Alternatively,
Motion

for

Bifurcation

of

Discovery

and

Entry

of

Amended

Scheduling Order (Doc. 21) and Plaintiff Annie Adams’ Motion to
Compel

Discovery

(Doc.

23).

Upon

consideration,

Defendant’s

motion to stay is DENIED, and Plaintiff’s motion to compel is
GRANTED.
I. Background
Plaintiff filed this action in June 2013 as a purported
class

action.1

(Doc.

1).

Plaintiff

alleges

that

Defendant

engaged in deceptive collection activity by failing to comply
with the requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g. Counsel for the
1

The complaint was amended on December 4, 2013. A copy of a
letter referenced in the original complaint was attached as an
exhibit to the amended complaint. (Doc. 19).

parties met, and pursuant to the Court’s preliminary scheduling
order, submitted a joint report of the parties’ planning meeting
on September 9, 2013.

(Doc. 9).

In the report, Plaintiff took

the position that discovery should focus on class discovery and
the merits of her claim.

(Doc. 9 at 2).

Defendant took the

position that discovery should focus on “the propriety of class
certification, and not on the merits of the case.”

(Id.)

On

September 11, 2013, the court entered a Rule 16(b) scheduling
order

which

individual

provides
claims

of

that

discovery

the

named

is

to

Plaintiff

focus
and

on

the

the
class

certification issues, and is to be completed by March 14, 2014.
(Doc. 11).

Plaintiff served discovery requests on Defendant on

September 9, 2013. (Doc. 21-1).
were

received

on

November

Defendant’s discovery responses
5,

2013.

Subsequent

thereto,

Plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly contacted defense counsel about
alleged deficiencies with the responses.

(Doc. 23 at 2-3).

On December 10, 2013, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss
and a motion seeking an order staying discovery or bifurcating
discovery
21).

into

merits/class

certification

phases.

(Docs.

20,

In the motion to stay (Doc. 21), Defendant argues that all

discovery should be stayed because Plaintiff has failed to state
a claim for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Defendant

contends

that

permitting

Plaintiff

to

conduct

discovery on class certification issues prior to a ruling on
2

Defendant’s motion to dismiss would be prejudicial to Defendant
because it will have to expend significant resources to comply
with expansive discovery requests on issues that may not survive
Defendant’s

motion

to

dismiss.

(Doc.

21

at

3).

In

the

alternative, Defendant contends that the Court should bifurcate
discovery so that the initial discovery focuses solely on the
merits of Plaintiff’s claim, and only broadened discovery if
issues relating to Plaintiff’s claims are decided in her favor.
(Id.

at

argues

4).
that

Plaintiff
a

stay

opposes

would

Defendant’s

reward

defense

efforts to delay discovery in this case.

stay

request

counsel

(Doc. 29).

for

and

their

Plaintiff

further argues that counsel for the parties met and agreed to a
discovery plan that did not provide for bifurcated discovery;
thus, Defendant should not be allowed to belatedly alter the
discovery schedule in this case.

(Id.).

Plaintiff also asserts

that contrary to Defendant’s assertion, the Manual for Complex
Litigation Third does not contemplate “merits” discovery first,
but

instead

contemplates

discovery first.

proceeding

(Id. at 4).

with

class

certification

Plaintiff has asserted similar

arguments in its motion to compel discovery.

(Doc. 23).

In

opposing Plaintiff’s motion to compel, Defendant again argues
that

all

permitting

discovery
Plaintiff

should
to

be

stayed

conduct

at

discovery

this

point

while

because

Defendant’s

motion to dismiss is pending would require Defendant to expend
3

significant

resources

to

comply

with

expansive

discovery

requests on issues that may not survive the motion to dismiss.
(Doc. 28).
II. Discussion
Courts have “broad discretion over the management of pretrial activities, including discovery and scheduling.”

Johnson

v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Ga., 263 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th
Cir. 2001).

Further, the Eleventh Circuit has observed that

whenever possible, facial challenges to the legal sufficiency of
a complaint, raised in a dispositive motion to dismiss, should
be resolved before discovery begins.

Cotton v. Massachusetts

Mut. Life Ins. Co., 402 F.3d 1267, 1292 (11th Cir. 2005); see
also Moore v. Potter, 141 F. Appx. 803, 807-08 (11th Cir. 2005)
(unpublished)2 (upholding the staying of discovery until ruling
on the defendant's motion to dismiss).

Of course, the rationale

for such is that early resolution of

purely legal questions

obviates the need for costly discovery.

See Chudasama v. Mazda

Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367-68 (11th Cir. 1997) (discussing
the various costs of discovery, which can be avoided if a court
dismisses a nonmeritorious claim before discovery has begun).
In the case at hand, Defendant filed the pending motion to
2

“Unpublished
opinions
are
not
considered
binding
precedent, but they may be cited as persuasive authority.” 11TH
CIR. R. 36-2 (2005).

4

dismiss at least three months after the scheduling order had
been entered and after discovery was well underway.

Given that

the motion to dismiss is based on information that was readily
available to Defendant, it is not clear why Defendant did not
seek a stay on the front end, but instead waited until the
parties were fully engaged in discovery to seek a stay.

What is

clear, however, is that halting discovery at this stage will
interfere with the scheduling order that is in place, and will
result in unnecessary delay if the motion to dismiss is denied.
The risk that Defendant will be forced to engage in needless
discovery could have been addressed early on had Defendant acted
promptly in filing its dispositive motion and request for a
stay.

Accordingly,

the

undersigned

finds

that

under

the

circumstances of this case, a stay of discovery at this juncture
is not appropriate.
The

Court

bifurcation.

likewise

denies

Defendant’s

request

for

As noted supra, before entry of the scheduling

order in this case, counsel for the parties conferred and filed
a Rule 26(f) report wherein both parties agreed that discovery
should focus on the propriety of class certification.
taken

that

early

position,

Defendant

is

now

estopped

Having
from

arguing, during the height of discovery, that discovery should
be confined to the claims of the named Plaintiff.

Accordingly,

Defendant’s motion to stay discovery is DENIED, and Plaintiff’s
5

motion to compel is GRANTED.

To the extent Defendant has not

done so, it is directed to supplement its discovery responses by
January 31, 2014.
DONE this the 15th day of January, 2014.
/s/ SONJA F. BIVINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6