Abdulmutallab v. Sessions et al

Filing 107

ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's 49 Objections to Magistrate Judge's 42 Order Granting Defendants 20 Motion to Stay Discovery. The Magistrate Judge's 42 Order is AFFIRMED and the discovery in this action is STAYED pending resolution of the 79 Motion to Dismiss and 80 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, unless otherwise ordered. ORDERED by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 7/9/2018. (cthom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 17-cv-02493-RM-KMT
UMAR FAROUK ABDULMUTALLAB,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFERSON SESSIONS, Attorney General of the United States, in his official capacity,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, and
JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 20, in their official capacities,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Order
(Doc. 42) Granting Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 20)” (the “Objection”) (ECF
No. 49), asserting that the Magistrate Judge’s order is clearly erroneous and/or contrary to law.
Upon consideration of the Objection, Defendants’ Response (ECF No. 59), relevant parts of the
court record, and the applicable rules and case law, and being otherwise fully advised, the
Objection is OVERRULED.
I.

LEGAL STANDARD
Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a nondispositive matter,

the Court must consider such objections and “modify or set aside any part of the order that is
clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Hutchinson v. Pfeil, 105 F.3d 562,
566 (10th Cir. 1997). Thus, objections will be overruled unless the Court finds that the
magistrate judge abused his or her discretion or, if after viewing the record as a whole, the Court

is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Ocelot Oil Corp. v.
Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir. 1988). “The clearly-erroneous standard is
‘significantly deferential.’” United States v. Cruz-Mendez, 467 F.3d 1260, 1265 (10th Cir.
2006) (quoting Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S.
602, 623 (1993)).
II.

DISCUSSION
Essentially, Plaintiff argues the Magistrate Judge incorrectly applied the String Cheese1

factors, i.e., (1) the 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. The Court considers Plaintiff’s arguments in turn.
The First Factor. As to the first factor, Plaintiff contends the Magistrate Judge did not
properly weigh Plaintiff’s strong interest and the serious prejudice to him resulting from a stay of
discovery. Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, the Magistrate Judge did recognize Plaintiff’s
interest in proceeding but found the potential prejudice to Plaintiff of a delay was outweighed by
other factors. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to dispute the finding that he failed to show how his
ability to conduct discovery would be adversely affected by a stay. While Plaintiff disagrees
with the weight the Magistrate Judge afforded his contentions, the Court cannot say that it is “left
with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made” as to the Magistrate Judge’s
determination.
The Second Factor. Plaintiff argues the Magistrate Judge’s determination regarding the
burden on Defendants is clearly erroneous and contrary to law as she (1) relied on an inapposite

1

String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 02-cv-01934-LTB-PA, 2006 WL 894955 (D. Colo. Mar. 30,
2006).
2

decision from another district, Chavous v. D.C. Fin. Responsibility & Mgmt. Assistance Auth.,
201 F.R.D. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2005); (2) Plaintiff needs an opportunity to conduct discovery to oppose
Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment;2 (3) Defendants failed to meet their burden;
and (4) “major aspects” of Plaintiff’s case are similar to other cases, thus resulting in increased
discovery efficiencies for Defendants and their counsel. The Court is not persuaded.
First, the Magistrate Judge’s Order specifically recognized that stays are generally
disfavored, but the courts nonetheless have discretion to stay discovery while a dispositive
motion is pending. The Magistrate Judge’s citation to an opinion from another district as
persuasive in her ruling does not demonstrate that her opinion is clearly erroneous or contrary to
law where Plaintiff fails to show it is contrary to controlling authority. Indeed, the case law
demonstrates that the evaluating and weighing of factors are exercises of a judicial officer’s
discretionary authority based on the case at hand. Next, the Order did not preclude Plaintiff from
seeking relief under Rule 56(d) to conduct discovery to respond to Defendants’ Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff in fact did so.3 As to Defendants’ burden, that is a
close question in light of the Magistrate Judge’s finding. The Court’s review of the record,
however, shows that, in light of the issues raised in this case and the discovery which Defendants
represented Plaintiff seeks (e.g., the deposition of the U.S. Attorney General),4 Defendants would
face a substantial discovery burden involving 14 claims while their dispositive motions involving
jurisdictional (and other) issues are pending. Finally, as to the other cases, Plaintiff fails to show
such cases are sufficiently similar or that increased efficiencies will likely result.
2

Plaintiff also cursorily contends that Defendants have “forfeited” any argument that discovery is burdensome when
they have moved for partial summary judgment at “a very early stage of this litigation.” (ECF No. 49, page 5.) It is
unclear how this is so when Rule 56(b) specifically allows Defendants to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b) (“Unless a
different time is set by local rule or the court orders otherwise, a party may file a motion for summary judgment at
any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery.”).
3
The requested relief was denied. (ECF No. 102.)
4
By this reference, the Court is not finding that such deposition or discovery may be had.
3

The Other Three Factors. As for convenience to the court, the Court cannot say that
the Magistrate Judge’s weighing of inconvenience with the potential waste of judicial resource in
this case was contrary to law. Here, the dispositive motions were then pending for her
recommendation on their disposition, so she was familiar with the issues before her.
As for the interest of nonparties and the public, in the context of litigation against public
officials, it has been said that “the public interest is well served by prompt and efficient handling
of litigation, particularly where the litigation involves allegations against public officials.” A.A.
ex rel. Archuletta v. Martinez, No. 12-CV-00732-WYD-KMT, 2012 WL 2872045, at *5 (D.
Colo. July 12, 2012), objections sustained on other grounds, No. 12-CV-00732-WYD-KMT,
2012 WL 5974170 (D. Colo. Oct. 9, 2012). It has also been accepted that discovery may be
stayed to allow “the Court and the Department of Justice, both of which are funded by the public,
to focus their efforts on matters more pressing than discovery in a case that may be dismissed.”
Green v. Napolitano, No. 11-CV-01163-WYD-KMT, 2011 WL 3583402, at *1 (D. Colo. Aug.
15, 2011) (stay unopposed). In this case, the Magistrate Judge found “neither the interest of
nonparties nor the public interest in general prompts the court to reach a different result.” (ECF
No. 42, page 5.) Giving significant deference to the Magistrate Judge, the Court cannot say that
her finding is clearly erroneous. See Harbinger Capital Partners LLC v. Ergen, No. 14-CV01907-WJM-KMT, 2015 WL 1133503, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 10, 2015) (avoiding wasteful efforts
by court serves public interest).
Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1) That Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Order (Doc. 42) Granting
Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 20) (ECF No. 49) is OVERRULED;

4

(2) That the Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF No. 42) is AFFIRMED; and
(3) That discovery in this action is STAYED pending resolution of the Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 79) and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 80),
unless otherwise ordered.
DATED this 9th day of July, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

5