United States of America v. Physicians Pain Specialists of Alabama, P.C. et al

Filing 193

ORDER granting 182 Motion to Stay Discovery pending ruling on Castle's pending Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. This stay of discovery shall dissolve without further court order the day following the date the Court enters an order completely disposing of Castle's motion (Doc. 184). Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine P. Nelson on 5/9/18. (srr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ex rel. LORI L. CARVER,
Plaintiff,
v.
PHYSICIANS PAIN SPECIALISTS
OF ALABAMA, P.C., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-00392-WS-N

ORDER
This action is before the Court on the “Motion to Stay Discovery and Quash
Relator’s Subpoena Duces Tecum to Lou Paravate” (Doc. 182) filed by Defendant Castle
Medical, LLC (“Castle”).

The Court has referred the motion to the undersigned

Magistrate Judge for appropriate action under 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(b), Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72, and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a). See S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(b); (8/3/2017 &
4/16/2018 electronic referral). Relator Lori L. Carver has filed a response (Doc. 185) to
the motion, Castle has filed a reply (Doc. 187) to the response, and the motion is now
under submission (see Doc. 183).
On October 27, 2017, the Court granted judgment on the pleadings under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) in favor of Castle on all claims against it in
Carver’s second amended complaint. (See Doc. 146). However, on April 3, 2018, the
Court, over Castle’s opposition, vacated that grant of judgment on the pleadings and
granted Carver leave to file a third amended complaint.

(See Doc. 175).

Castle’s

subject motion requests that discovery in this action be stayed until the Court has ruled
on Castle’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the third

amended complaint (Doc. 184). In response, Carver believes that she should be entitled
to engage in discovery just as if no motion to stay had been filed,” but alternatively
asserts she is willing “to pursue only the taking of Mr. Paravate’s deposition and to
pursue any responsive documents that her lawyers believe have not yet been produced”
to discovery responses served prior to the previous grant of judgment on the pleadings.
(Doc. 185 at 1). In reply, Castle continues to insist for a stay of all discovery pending a
ruling on its Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
The Court has wide discretion in setting discovery limits.

See, e.g., Liese v.

Indian River Cty. Hosp. Dist., 701 F.3d 334, 354 (11th Cir. 2012).

Previously, the

undersigned denied Castle’s motion to stay discovery pending the Court’s ruling on its
motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that Castle had unreasonably delayed
in both filing its Rule 12(c) motion and requesting a stay of discovery, and had failed to
show at the time that its Rule 12(c) motion was so clearly meritorious as to warrant a
stay of discovery pending disposition of the motion. (See Doc. 139).1 However, given the
current circumstances and procedural posture of the case, the undersigned finds that
Castle’s present motion for a complete stay of discovery is due to be granted.
Unlike when Castle previously attempted to short-circuit discovery after
voluntarily allowing it to commence and significantly proceed, discovery between Castle
and Carver has been at a standstill for over five months between the grant of judgment
on the pleadings and the filing of the third amended complaint.

This will likely

necessitate amending the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) schedule; indeed,
Carver has indicated her intent to file a motion to do so. (See Doc. 106; Doc. 185 at 1

The District Judge affirmed that decision after objection was made under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). (See Doc. 143).
1

2

n.1).

Moreover, this time Castle has promptly sought dismissal of the operative

complaint under Rule 12.
Carver has already received a second chance to plead her claims against Castle
after choosing to defend, unsuccessfully, the sufficiency of her allegations in the second
amended complaint on the merits, rather than attempting to amend her complaint
prior to dismissal under Rule 15(a)(2) to address the deficiencies noted in Castle’s Rule
12(c) motion with the discovery she had already received (as she has apparently done in
her third amended complaint). Generally, “[d]iscovery should follow the filing of a wellpleaded complaint. It is not a device to enable a plaintiff to make a case when his
complaint has failed to state a claim.”

Kaylor v. Fields, 661 F.2d 1177, 1184 (8th Cir.

1981) (quoted favorably in Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367
(11th Cir. 1997)). Given that Castle successfully obtained dismissal of Carver’s second
amended complaint for failure to adequately plead its claims, and given the significant
amount of time discovery between Castle and Carver has been at a stand-still since the
third amended complaint was filed – a delay which will likely require extending
discovery and related deadlines anyway – the undersigned concludes that Castle should
be given the chance to obtain dismissal once more before being subjected to further
discovery in this action, and that Carver will not be significantly prejudiced by any such
delay.2

As for Carver’s assertion that she should at least be allowed to further pursue
discovery that was sought prior to the grant of judgment on the pleadings, the
undersigned is not persuaded that denying her the ability to do so works any
fundamental unfairness. Subject to any Rule 16(b) deadline for dispositive motions,
a party may move for judgment on the pleadings at any time “after the pleadings
are closed…but early enough not to delay trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Thus, Rule
12(c) clearly contemplates that such a motion could be brought and granted while
2

3

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Castle’s second motion to stay (Doc. 182) is
GRANTED and that all discovery in this action is STAYED pending the Court’s ruling
on Castle’s pending Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the third amended complaint (Doc.
184). This stay of discovery shall dissolve without further court order the day
following the date the Court enters an order completely disposing of Castle’s Rule
12(b)(6) motion (Doc. 184). To the extent any party believes it necessary to amend the
Rule 16(b) scheduling order (Doc. 106) thereafter, the party should file a motion for
such relief under Rule 16(b)(4).3
DONE and ORDERED this the 9th day of May 2018.
/s/ Katherine P. Nelson
KATHERINE P. NELSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

discovery is ongoing, resulting in discovery requests served prior to the grant of
judgment going unanswered, and depositions noticed prior to the grant of judgment
left untaken.
Castle’s motion also requested that the Court quash the deposition of Lou
Paravate that Carver had noticed for May 2, 2018 (see Doc. 180). In her response,
filed April 23, 2018, Carver represents “that Castle’s counsel has advised that the
May 2 date presents a conflict” and that her counsel “have expressed their
willingness to find a substitute date suitable to everyone.” (Doc. 185 at 2 n.3).
Given that Carver voluntarily postponed Paravate’s deposition, the request to
“quash” the May 2 deposition notice is MOOT.
3

4