Murray v. Nationwide Better Health et al
Filing
134
OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 7/8/2011. Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Including Discovery Pending the Decision on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Other Relief (d/e 111) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Strike and/or Deny Defendant's Motion to Stay (d/e 116) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's Motion for Continuance to Complete Discovery (d/e 121) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PA RT. Pending a determination on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 108), discovery, including all outstanding discovery, is STAYED with the exception that Plaintiff shall be entitled to conduct limited discovery in accordance with this Opinion. This limited discovery shall be completed by September 1, 2011. Plaintiff shall thereafter file her response to the Motion for Summary Judgment on or before September 26, 2011. Defendants shall file their reply in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment within 14 days of Plaintiff's response.(MAS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 11 July, 2011 09:08:02 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
SHARON MURRAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONWIDE BETTER
HEALTH, BARBARA LEY, and
CYNTHIA NORTHRUP,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 10-3262
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, United States District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay
Proceedings Including Discovery Pending the Decision on Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment and Other Relief (Motion to Stay) (d/e
111), Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Strike and/or Deny Defendant’s
Motion to Stay (Motion to Strike) (d/e 116), and Plaintiff’s Motion for
Continuance to Complete Discovery (Motion for Continuance) (d/e
121). On June 24, 2011, U.S. Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore took
under advisement the Motion to Stay and the Motion to Strike. This
Court now GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the Motion to
Stay, the Motion to Strike, and the Motion to Continue.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant Nationwide Better Health was the third-party
administrator who handled Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) (29
U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.) and short term disability claims for Plaintiff’s
employer AT&T Mobility, LLC (AT&T). Defendants Cynthia Northrup
and Barbara Ley were employees of Nationwide Better Health.
In 2008, AT&T terminated Plaintiff Sharon Murray for
absenteeism. Thereafter, Plaintiff sued AT&T for violations of the
FMLA and ADA. Plaintiff alleged: (1) AT&T improperly interfered with
her rights under the FMLA by miscalculating her FMLA usage and
improperly retaliated against her for using FMLA leave; and (2) violated
the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to grant her an
accommodation and by refusing to rehire her with accommodations. In
September 2009, summary judgment was granted in favor of AT&T, and
the Seventh Circuit affirmed. See Murray v. AT&T Mobility, 2009 WL
Page 2 of 11
2985721 (C.D. Ill. 2009) (granting summary judgment in favor of the
defendant on the federal claims and declining to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims); aff’d, 374 Fed. Appx. 667 (7th Cir.
2010) (hereinafter, “the AT&T litigation”).
In October 2010, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint against
Nationwide Better Health, Northrup, and Ley. The Complaint alleges
violations of the FMLA, the Employment Retirement Income Security
Act (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.) (ERISA), violations of her Constitutional
rights, and various state-law claims.1 The Complaint also alleges a
perjury claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1621 and 28 U.S.C. § 1746. The
factual basis of the Complaint is primarily based on Plaintiff’s belief that
(1) Northrup provided intentionally misleading information regarding
the authenticity of a document presented in the AT&T litigation and (2)
records were not preserved. Plaintiff asserts that the failure to properly
preserve documents has caused her “significant harm, damages, including
1
Plaintiff alleges she is a qualified individual with a disability under
the ADA but does not appear to allege a violation of the ADA within the
Complaint.
Page 3 of 11
employee health benefits and her rights to future benefits under ERISA.”
As relief, Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $500,000 and punitive
damages.
On June 22, 2011, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. Defendants assert they are entitled to summary judgment as a
matter of law on the FMLA claims because: (1) the claims are barred by
the doctrine of issue preclusion because Plaintiff has already litigated the
issues in her FMLA claims in the AT&T litigation; (2) Nationwide Better
Health was not Plaintiff’s employer as defined by the FMLA; (3) the
FMLA claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations.
Defendants assert they are entitled to summary judgment on the ERISA
claims because: (1) Plaintiff’s claims have nothing to do with an ERISA
plan or any fiduciary duty to an ERISA plan; (2) Defendants are not
covered by any of the ERISA sections cited by Plaintiff; (3) Plaintiff’s
ERISA claims are for spoliation of records and she has not alleged facts to
support claims under ERISA; and (4) Plaintiff did not assert a civil
enforcement provision under ERISA under which she alleges her ERISA
Page 4 of 11
claims.
Finally, Defendants claim they are entitled to summary judgment
on: (1) the Constitutional claims because Defendants are not state actors;
(2) the perjury claims because the statutes upon which Plaintiff relies do
not provide a private right of action; and (3) the state law claims, to the
extent the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction, because the facts
alleged do not support the claim.
II. ANALYSIS
On June 22, 2011, Defendants filed the Motion to Stay, asking
that the Court stay all proceedings, including discovery, until the Court
decided Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant assert a
stay would be appropriate because the Motion for Summary Judgment is
primarily based on the legal standards of the various causes of action.
Plaintiff objects to the Motion to Stay. In her Motion to Strike,
Plaintiff asserts a stay would prejudice and tactically disadvantage her
and would provide no benefit in the form of simplifying the issues for
trial. Plaintiff further asserts that permitting discovery to proceed would
Page 5 of 11
allow her to obtain information that supports her claims that (1) she had
not exhausted her FMLA leave; (2) Northrup committed perjury; and (3)
spoliation and intentional destruction of documents occurred.
Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Continuance. Plaintiff attaches to
her Motion for Continuance a Rule 56(d) Declaration of Necessity in
Support of Motion for Continuance to Complete Discovery
(Declaration). In the Declaration, Plaintiff identifies the information she
believes certain deponents would provide. That information primarily
consists of information supporting the substance of Plaintiff’s allegations.
However, she also asserts the identified deponents would provide
information regarding: (1) the “direct part Nationwide Better Health
contributes to termination of” an employee; (2)“what it means to be a
third party administrator for” FMLA; and (3) the existence of additional
policies and contracts entered between Nationwide Better Health and
Plaintiff’s former employer.
In deciding whether to stay proceedings, the Court considers
whether the stay will: (1) unduly prejudice or tactically disadvantage the
Page 6 of 11
nonmoving party; (2) simplify the issues and streamline the trial; and (3)
reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and the Court. Pfizer Inc.
v. Apotex Inc., 640 F.Supp.2d 1006, 1007 (N.D. Ill. 2009). Whether to
stay the proceedings is within this Court’s discretion. See, e.g., Clinton v.
Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (“The District court has broad
discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its
own docket”). Moreover, this Court has “wide discretion with respect to
discovery matters.” Brown-Bey v. United States, 720 F.2d 467, 470-71
(7th Cir. 1983).
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment raises primarily legal
issues with regard to Plaintiff’s federal claims. If successful, this Court
would likely decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state
law claims and the litigation here would come to an end. Granting a stay
of the proceedings until this Court rules on the Motion for Summary
Judgment would simplify the issues and reduce the burden of litigation
on the parties.
However, this Court also recognizes that Plaintiff, who appears pro
Page 7 of 11
se, has received little discovery thus far in the case. Moreover, Plaintiff
has filed a Declaration pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure identifying the reasons she cannot respond to the Motion
for Summary Judgment without further discovery.
Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration
that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts
essential to justify its opposition, the court may:
(1) defer considering the motion or deny it;
(2) allow time to obtain affidavits or
declarations or to take discovery; or
(3) issue any other appropriate order.
In accordance with Rule 56(d), this Court will allow Plaintiff additional
time to obtain affidavits and conduct limited discovery. Discovery will
be limited to the issues raised in the Motion for Summary Judgment
regarding Plaintiff’s federal claims, specifically: (1) whether Nationwide
Better Health is a “covered employer” under the FMLA; and (2) whether
Nationwide Better Health, Northrup, or Ley are “fiduciaries” of a “plan”
under ERISA. Plaintiff is also permitted to conduct discovery regarding
Page 8 of 11
any agreements, policies, or contracts entered into between Nationwide
Better Health and Plaintiff’s former employer during the relevant time
and relating to the two issues cited above.
In addition, this Court notes that Defendants supported their
Motion for Summary Judgment with affidavits from Northrup and from
Deborah Baugh, an employee of AT&T located in the State of
Washington. Plaintiff is permitted to obtain discovery from Northrup
and Baugh regarding the information provided in their Affidavits.
Plaintiff must note, however, that Baugh is not a party to the litigation
and is not an employee of Nationwide Better Health. Therefore, any
discovery Plaintiff seeks to obtain from Baugh must be done in
accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g.,
Fed.R.Civ.P. 30, Fed.R.Civ.P.31, Fed.R.Civ.P.45.
Discovery on the issues raised in Plaintiff’s Complaint, including,
but not limited to the following, is stayed pending a ruling on
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment: whether (1) Plaintiff
exhausted her FMLA leave; (2) Northrup committed perjury; and (3)
Page 9 of 11
spoliation and intentional destruction of documents occurred. If the
Motion for Summary Judgment is denied, this Court will allow additional
discovery upon motion of either party and may reset the scheduling
deadlines herein for good cause.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings
Including Discovery Pending the Decision on Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment and Other Relief (d/e 111) is GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Strike and/or
Deny Defendant’s Motion to Stay (d/e 116) is GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s Motion for Continuance to
Complete Discovery (d/e 121) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
IN PART. Pending a determination on Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (d/e 108), discovery, including all outstanding
discovery, is STAYED with the exception that Plaintiff shall be entitled
to conduct limited discovery in accordance with this Opinion. This
limited discovery shall be completed by September 1, 2011. Plaintiff
Page 10 of 11
shall thereafter file her response to the Motion for Summary Judgment
on or before September 26, 2011. Defendants shall file their reply in
support of the Motion for Summary Judgment within 14 days of
Plaintiff’s response.
ENTERED: July 8, 2011
FOR THE COURT:
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 11 of 11
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?