General Conference of the Evangelical Methodist Church v. New Heart Community Fellowship, Inc.

Filing 45

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Re: Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order to Disallow Further Discovery granting 37 Motion for Protective Order to Disallow Further Discovery. Plaintiff is not required to respond to Defendants written discovery served 2/8/2013. Signed by Judge Ronald E. Bush. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF THE
EVANGELICAL METHODIST CHURCH,

Case No. 1:11-cv-00643-REB
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO
DISALLOW FURTHER DISCOVERY

Plaintiff,
v.
THE CROSSING CHURCH, INC., f/k/a New Heart
Community Fellowship, Inc.,

(DOCKET NO. 37)

Defendant.

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order to Disallow
Further Discovery (Docket No. 37). Having carefully considered the record and otherwise being
fully advised, the Court enters the following Memorandum Decision and Order:
I. DISCUSSION
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant’s attendance at arbitration,
nothing more. To this end, and as has repeatedly been stated throughout this litigation thus far,
issues relating to alter ego and equitable estoppel represent the paramount areas of inquiry for
this Court’s consideration. With this understanding in mind, through its motion for protective
order, Plaintiff seeks to strike Defendant’s recent discovery requests, arguing that they are not
only untimely, but also not relevant to the issues of alter ego and equitable estoppel. The
undersigned agrees as to the latter issue of relevancy.
After reviewing each of the at-issue interrogatories, requests for production, and requests
for admission, the Court can discern no connection between the information sought and the
issues presently before the Court for decision – that is, alter ego and/or equitable estoppel for the
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

purposes of resolving Plaintiff’s Complaint for an Order to Compel Arbitration. Without
deciding the issue, the Court will accept for these purposes the argument that such information
might well be useful to the merits of the underlying financial dispute between Plaintiff and
Defendant (and, thus, be relevant to those discrete issues). However, that dispute and all of its
contours are not now before the Court. In other words, without a claim (or defense raised to that
claim) in this lawsuit that would provide some predicate relevance to Defendant’s requested
written discovery, there is no legal justification under the applicable civil rules for such
discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (“. . . . Parties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . .”) (Emphasis added).
Consistent with FRCP 26(c) (and also keeping in mind the Federal Rules’ intention “to
secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action” (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 1)),
good cause exists to protect Plaintiff from the burden and expense of having to respond to
discovery that is not relevant to whether Defendant should be compelled to submit to arbitration
and, thus, not relevant to this action. Plaintiff’s motion is granted.1
///
///
///
///
///
///

1

The Court therefore considers the briefing related to Plaintiff’s pending Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket No. 36) to be complete and will rule upon the existing record now
before it. No additional briefing is permitted without leave of Court.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

II. ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Protective Order to Disallow Further Discovery (Docket No. 37) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is not
required to respond to Defendant’s written discovery served February 8, 2013.

DATED: March 8, 2013

Honorable Ronald E. Bush
U. S. Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3