M.G. et al v. Metropolitan Interpreters and Translators, Inc. et al

Filing 57

ORDER granting 52 MOTION to Stay Discovery. As provided herein, discovery is stayed for all parties pending a ruling on 48 Federal defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The parties are to contact the chambers of Magistrate Judge Dembin within three business days of the ruling on the Motion to Dismiss for further proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 2/26/13. (Dembin, Mitchell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

M.G., et al.,

12

vs.

CASE NO. 12cv460-JM (MDD)
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15

[ECF NO. 52]

METROPOLITAN
INTERPRETERS and
TRANSLATORS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO STAY DISCOVERY

Before the Court is the motion of the Federal defendants1 filed on

18

February 13, 2013, to stay discovery. (ECF No. 52). According to the

19

Federal defendants, the Plaintiffs do not oppose. The non-Federal

20

defendants, however, consisting of Metropolitan Interpreters and

21

Translators, Inc. , and individual defendants employed by Metropolitan

22

identified by their initials, J.C., R.P., M.L. and B.A., have opposed any

23

stay regarding their cases. (ECF No. 53).2

24
25
26
27
28

1

The Federal defendants are the United States of America and Eileen Zeidler,
Sondra Hester, Darek Kitlinski and William R. Sherman. The individual defendants are
employees of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration. (ECF No. 52 at 1-2).
2

It is not clear whether Metropolitan is opposing the stay only for itself or also
on behalf of its named employees. (See ECF No. 53). Since the named employees are
represented by the same counsel and their interests appear aligned, for now, with
Metropolitan, the Court will assume that Metropolitan is opposing the motion to stay
-1-

12cv460-JM (MDD)

1

Plaintiffs are current and former employees of Metropolitan who

2

worked as linguists. According to Plaintiffs, Metropolitan had a contract

3

with the Drug Enforcement Administration for translation services and

4

Plaintiffs were assigned work, from time to time, pursuant to that

5

contract. Plaintiffs main allegations are that they suffered adverse

6

employment action and were otherwise damaged or aggrieved by being

7

subjected to polygraph examinations by Drug Enforcement

8

Administration personnel allegedly in violation of the Employee

9

Polygraph Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2002.
Procedural History

10
11

The Complaint was filed on February 23, 2012, and named only

12

Metropolitan and certain of its employees. (ECF No. 1). The Complaint

13

was amended with the filing of the First Amended Complaint on April 5,

14

2012, which again was limited to Metropolitan and certain employees.

15

(ECF No. 14). Following resolution of pre-answer motions, Metropolitan

16

and the named employees filed their Answer on August 1, 2012. (ECF

17

No. 21). An Early Neutral Evaluation with the Court was held on

18

September 10, 2012. (ECF Nos. 27, 28). A Case Management

19

Conference was held on October 30, 2012. (ECF No. 33). On that same

20

day, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion and allowed the

21

filing of the Second Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 29, 30). The

22

Federal defendants were added to the case at that time. The Federal

23

defendants have not answered the Complaint, instead moving, on

24

January 29, 2013, to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint as to all

25

Federal defendants on grounds of sovereign and qualified immunity.

26

(ECF No. 48).

27

Discovery commenced between Plaintiffs and the non-Federal

28
for all non-Federal defendants.
-2-

12cv460-JM (MDD)

1

defendants with the exchange of initial disclosures pursuant to

2

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a) no later than October 26, 2012. (ECF No. 28 at 1-2).

3

Formal discovery has been open between them at least as of October 30,

4

2012, if not earlier. (See ECF No. 53 at 1).

5

Discussion

6

The Federal defendants seek to have discovery completely stayed

7

pending the outcome of their motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 52 at 5-6).

8

Alternatively, the Federal defendants seek a stay of discovery only as to

9

them and request leave to re-open depositions taken during the stay

10

period if they remain in the case. (Id. at 6).

11

The Court agrees with the Federal defendants that, at a minimum,

12

discovery should be stayed as to them. A defendant asserting immunity

13

should be free from all burdens of litigation. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

14

U.S. 662, 685 (2009). Although Iqbal involved the assertion of qualified

15

immunity, the Court agrees that the same view should obtain with

16

regard to the assertion of sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Lindhurst v.

17

USA, Social Security Administration, 2012 WL 5381576 *2 (D. Colo.

18

October 31, 2012).

19

The more challenging question is whether to stay discovery

20

completely or to allow discovery otherwise to proceed. In Iqbal, the

21

Supreme Court stayed discovery for all defendants stating that to do

22

otherwise would not truly relieve the stayed defendants from the

23

burdens of discovery. The Court stated:

24
25
26
27
28

It is no answer to these concerns to say that discovery for
petitioners can be deferred while pretrial proceedings
continue for other defendants. It is quite likely that, when
discovery as to the other parties proceeds, it would prove
necessary for petitioners and their counsel to participate in
the process to ensure the case does not develop in a
misleading or slanted way that causes prejudice to their
position. Even if petitioners are not yet themselves subject to
discovery orders, they would not be free from the burdens of
discovery.
-3-

12cv460-JM (MDD)

1

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 685.

2

Other courts, although recognizing this statement from Iqbal as dicta,

3

nevertheless have agreed that all discovery should be stayed when any

4

defendant raises an immunity defense. See A.A. v. Martinez, 2012 WL

5

5974170 *1-2 (D. Colo. October 9, 2012).

6

The Court is not convinced that an automatic stay of all discovery

7

is required in every case in which a defendant raises a claim of

8

immunity. Rather, the Court should consider the nature of the case and

9

the extent to which proceeding with discovery as to other parties likely

10

would prejudice the stayed defendants, the impact on other parties and

11

the court. Courts are empowered to fashion such protective orders as

12

may be needed to protect the stayed defendants and maintain efficiency

13

if the circumstances of the case so suggest. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c).

14

In this case, it appears that the conduct of the government actors is

15

inextricably intertwined with the allegations against the non-Federal

16

defendants. The gravamen of the defense for the non-Federal

17

defendants is that the Federal defendants required the polygraph

18

examinations and the contract required that any communications

19

between DEA and Metropolitan were required to flow through

20

Metropolitan. (See, e.g., Answer to Amended Complaint, ECF No. 34 at

21

¶¶ 38, 46, 58). Consequently, discovery into the actions of the Federal

22

defendants, whether obtained from Plaintiffs, from the non-Federal

23

defendants or from third parties, is critical to establishing facts to

24

support the defense of the non-Federal defendants. The concerns

25

expressed in Iqbal regarding potential prejudice to stayed defendants

26

appears real in this case if discovery is allowed otherwise to proceed.

27
28

The Court appreciates the frustration expressed by the non-Federal
defendants but cannot conceive of a protective order that would
-4-

12cv460-JM (MDD)

1

adequately protect the Federal defendants during the stay. It is not a

2

satisfactory solution to allow discovery otherwise to proceed. To avoid

3

prejudicing their position, the Federal defendants, through counsel,

4

either would have to attend the depositions that may occur or would

5

have to seek leave to re-take depositions in which their interests have

6

not been adequately explored or in which their position has been

7

mischaracterized. With the first option, the burden of discovery would

8

not been lifted as required by law. With the second option, witnesses

9

and other parties may have to be re-deposed which is inefficient and

10

burdensome.
Conclusion

11
12

The motion of the Federal defendants to stay discovery pending a

13

ruling on their Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Discovery is stayed for

14

all parties until further Order of this Court. The parties are instructed

15

to contact this Court within three (3) business days of the ruling on the

16

pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 48) for further proceedings.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 26, 2013

20
21
22

Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin
U.S. Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-

12cv460-JM (MDD)