Jones v. Horseshoe Casino et al

Filing 68

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 63 MOTION (First) Modify Stay re 22 Notice of Filing Bankruptcy, 23 Order by Plaintiff Gloria Jones. Plaintiff ADVISED she may serve subpoenas upon Horseshoe Casino for the video tape and chair as if Horseshoe Casino were a third party to the instant lawsuit. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 9/8/15. (cer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
GLORIA JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
HORSESHOE CASINO, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 2:15-CV-14-PPS-PRC

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for a Modification of Automatic Stay
for a Limited Purposes [sic] [DE 63], filed by Plaintiff Gloria Jones, on July 28, 2015. None of the
Defendants filed a response. On January 23, 2015, Defendant Horseshoe Casino advised the Court
that it had filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Code in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On January 26, 2015, this Court stayed this
action as to Horseshoe Casino only. In the instant motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to modify the stay
to allow the retrieval of evidence central to this case. Specifically, Plaintiff requests that the Court
allow discovery of a video tape and chair that are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims against the other
Defendants in this case.
While Horseshoe Casino’s bankruptcy petition operates as an automatic stay of the instant
case as to Horseshoe Casino, 11 U.S.C. § 362, the stay does not protect against discovery directed
at Horseshoe Casino to be used against the other Defendants, even if the discovered items could later
be used against Horseshoe Casino. See In re Richard B. Vance & Co., 289 B.R. 692, 697 (Bankr.
C.D. Ill. 2003); In re Mahurkar Double Lumen Hemodialysis Catheter Patent Litig., 140 B.R. 969,
977 (Bankr. E.D. Ill. 1992); see also In re Miller, 262 B.R. 599, 503-04 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2001).
Because a modification of the stay is not necessary for Plaintiff to obtain the discovery she

seeks, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for a Modification of Automatic Stay for a
Limited Purposes [sic] [DE 63] and ADVISES that Plaintiff may serve subpoenas upon Horseshoe
Casino for the video tape and chair as if Horseshoe Casino were a third party to the instant lawsuit.
So ORDERED this 8th day of September, 2015.
s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2