IBEW Local #111 et al v. Public Service Company of Colorado et al

Filing 94

ORDER granting 74 Motion for Leave to Serve Attached Discovery; granting in part and denying in part 76 Motion to Vacate Deadlines ; granting in part and denying in part 80 Motion for Protective Order by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 8/12/2015.(mdave, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01694-PAB-MEH
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL #111,
DOMINGO N. MORENO,
DAVID L. WILLIAMS,
GUY E. FORTI,
GERALD E. KING, and
VICKI WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO, and
XCEL ENERGY INC. EMPLOYEE WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN, a/k/a The Public Service
Company and Participating Subsidiary Companies Retirees’ Medical Managed Care/Medicare
Coordinated Plan,
Defendants.

ORDER

Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Serve Attached Discovery [filed July
8, 2015; docket #74], Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate Deadlines [filed July 20, 2015; docket #76], and
Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order [filed July 21, 2015; docket #80]. These matters are now
fully briefed, and upon review, the Court finds that oral argument would not materially assist the
Court in adjudicating the motions. Accordingly, the hearing currently scheduled for August 13,
2015 is vacated. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve discovery is
granted, and the Defendants’ motion for protective order and Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate are
granted in part and denied in part.
The background of this case was set forth in this Court’ recent July 1, 2015 order. See
docket #72. At that time, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the operative pleading but

denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ request to supplement the complaint with information
concerning a 2013 summary plan description. The present motions followed.
I.

Motion for Leave to Serve Discovery
At the April 17 Status Conference in this case, the Court asked counsel whether fact

discovery had been completed and both answered yes; Plaintiffs’ counsel then qualified her
statement saying Plaintiffs would need discovery on the 2013 summary plan description, which had
been implemented during the stay of these proceedings. Transcript of April 17 Status Conference,
13: 12-25, docket #64. Plaintiffs’ counsel asserted she would need “[v]ery minimal written
[discovery] and a -- I’d guess a two-hour deposition.” Id., 14: 1-3. The Court directed Plaintiffs’
counsel to file proposed limited discovery requests with their motion to supplement the complaint,
to ascertain whether justice required that the Plaintiffs supplement the pleading with such
information. Id., 14:17-25, 15:1-8. However, when they filed the motion to supplement, Plaintiffs
did not produce proposed discovery requests asserting, “ ... it is more appropriate to supplement the
complaint to address the 2013 SPD and allow the defendants to answer the PASC allegations ...
before they can formulate appropriate discovery ....” Docket #62 at 15. The Court disagreed and
denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ request to supplement the operative pleading with information
concerning the 2013 summary plan description.
Here, Defendants’ sole objection to the Plaintiffs’ request is that they failed to follow the
Court’s order to produce proposed discovery with their motion to supplement and should not be
given another opportunity. After further review, the Court finds that, although the Plaintiffs were
certainly wrong in determining not to follow the Court’s order, their justification for doing so is not
unreasonable. The Court’s aim is to “secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every
action and proceeding,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, and in so doing, the Court’s pursuit of justice must also

2

include the pursuit of the truth, which is of primary importance in discovery. Because the
Defendants do not object to the particular discovery requests proposed by the Plaintiffs here, and
the Court finds such requests to be within the scope of the discussion held at the April 17, 2015
Status Conference, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ request to serve the proposed discovery requests.
However, nothing in this order shall be construed to permit Plaintiffs to engage in any further
discovery or to amend/supplement the Plaintiffs’ pleading without further leave of the Court.
II.

Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Vacate
Defendants seek protection from Plaintiffs’ request to supplement Defendants’ discovery

responses concerning Plaintiffs’ recent amended allegations regarding the Members Pay the
Difference (“MPD”) program, and Plaintiffs seek to vacate the deadlines set by the Court at the
April 17, 2015 conference. The Court finds that the parties’ requests may be sufficiently resolved
by a temporary stay of the proceedings pending resolution of the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
The decision to stay discovery rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Wang v.
Hsu, 919 F.2d 130, 130 (10th Cir. 1990). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly
provide for a stay of proceedings; however, Rule 26(c) does permit the court, upon a showing of
good cause, to “protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue
burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). A stay of all discovery is generally disfavored in this
district. Chavez v. Young Am. Ins. Co., No. 06-cv-02419-PSF-BNB, 2007 WL 683973, at *2 (D.
Colo. Mar. 2, 2007). However, as this Court stated previously, “good cause may exist to stay
discovery if a dispositive motion has been filed that could resolve the case and a stay does not
unduly prejudice the opposing party.” Namoko v. Milgard Mfg., Inc., No. 06-cv-02031-WDMMEH, 2007 WL 1063564, at *1 (D. Colo. Apr. 6, 2007).

3

Here, the Defendants’ motion to dismiss would not necessarily resolve the entire case but,
if granted, would preclude the necessity of further discovery concerning the MPD program.
Typically, in evaluating a request for a stay of discovery, the following five factors guide the Court’s
determination:
(1) plaintiff’s interests in proceeding expeditiously with the civil action and the
potential prejudice to plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on the defendants; (3) the
convenience to the court; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation;
and (5) the public interest.
String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 02-cv-01934-LTB-PAC, 2006 WL 894955
at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006); see also Golden Quality Ice Cream Co. v. Deerfield Speciality
Papers, Inc., 87 F.R.D. 53, 56 (E.D. Pa. 1980).
A balance of these factors favors a temporary stay in this case. Both parties agree that
further discovery concerning the MPD program is necessary only if the Plaintiffs’ amendments are
allowed to proceed. The parties have each essentially sought a stay of further discovery (other than
that described above) to avoid any unnecessary burdens and/or costs of discovery. While the Court
typically discourages stays of discovery, the Court acknowledges the efficiency and fairness of
delaying the proceedings pending resolution of a motion to dismiss that could entirely resolve an
issue. See Harris v. United States, No. 09-cv-02658-PAB-KLM, 2010 WL 1687915, at *1 (D. Colo.
Apr. 27, 2010) (“[n]either [the Court’s] nor the parties’ time is well-served by being involved in the
‘struggle over the substance of the suit’ when, as here, a dispositive motion is pending.”) (citations
omitted). “A stay of discovery pending the determination of a dispositive motion ‘is an eminently
logical means to prevent wasting the time and effort of all concerned, and to make the most efficient
use of judicial resources.’” Chavous v. Dist. of Columbia Fin. Responsibility & Mgmt. Assistance
Auth., 201 F.R.D. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2001) (citation omitted).
Therefore, as the pending motion to dismiss may resolve whether any further discovery
4

regarding the MPD program is necessary, the Court finds good cause exists to impose a temporary
stay of discovery, other than that ordered herein, until the District Court rules on the motion to
dismiss.
III.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Serve Attached

Discovery [filed July 8, 2015; docket #74]. Defendants shall have 33 days to respond to the
requests. Plaintiffs may not engage in any further discovery without leave of the Court.
In addition, the Court granted in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate
Deadlines [filed July 20, 2015; docket #76] and Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order [filed July
21, 2015; docket #80]. The Court vacates the deadlines set at the April 17, 2015 Status Conference
and imposes a temporary stay of the proceedings, except the discovery ordered herein, until the
District Court rules on the Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
Counsel for the parties shall file a joint status report within five (5) days of a ruling on the motion
to dismiss.
The hearing scheduled for August 13, 2015 is vacated.
Dated at Denver, Colorado, this 12th day of August, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge

5