Garrett's Worldwide Enterprises, LLC et al v. United States of America et al
Filing
31
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER finding as moot 10 Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery; granting 22 Defendant's Amended Motion to Stay Discovery. All discovery and scheduling deadlines are stayed pending further order of the court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen M. Humphreys on 12/12/14. (sj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
GARRETT’S WORLDWIDE
ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 14-2281-JTM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on defendants’ amended motion to stay discovery
(Doc. 22).1 For the reasons set forth below, the motion shall be GRANTED.
Background2
Plaintiff Garrett’s Worldwide Enterprises, LLC (“GWE”) and its president, Eric
Garrett, are engaged in the sales of consumer fireworks throughout the midwestern and
southeastern United States. Through the Department of Transportation, the defendant
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”) regulates the
transportation of explosive materials into and throughout the United States. Highly
1
Defendants filed an earlier motion to stay (Doc. 10) on August 29, 2014. After that filing, the
parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement to stay response to that motion (see
Joint Motion, Doc. 13 and Scheduling Order, Doc. 14). On October 31, 2014, defendants filed
their amended motion (Doc. 22) which is addressed herein. Defendants’ initial motion to stay
(Doc. 10) is therefore rendered moot.
2
The facts in this section are taken from the parties’ pleadings and briefs and should not be
construed as judicial findings or factual determinations.
summarized, plaintiffs claim that the PHMSA, through its agents Terry Pollard, Theodore
Turner, III and Edward Rastetter, initiated a series of unjustified and financially
devastating investigations of GWE’s business operations.
Plaintiffs believe the
investigations occurred in retaliation for GWE’s open criticism of PHMSA’s permitting
process. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”)3 plaintiffs assert state law claims
of entrapment, negligence, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, intentional and
negligent infliction of emotional distress, and unlawful search. Plaintiffs also make
Bivens4 claims against the individual defendants for violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments. Defendants deny any improper investigation of GWE and
contend that this lawsuit was filed only because plaintiffs disagree with the penalties
imposed against them for transporting unapproved fireworks.
Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 22)
The combined defendants have filed a motion (Doc. 20) seeking dismissal based
on “numerous and substantial deficits in plaintiff’s claims” including, in part, that the
claims are barred by sovereign immunity.5 Defendants now request a stay of discovery
pending resolution of the fully-dispositive motion. Plaintiff opposes a stay, arguing that
stays are rarely granted in this district and defendants would not be unduly prejudiced by
proceeding while the motion to dismiss is pending.
3
28 U.S.C. § 2671, 2680(h).
See Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognizing a cause of
action for damages against federal agents acting under their authority who allegedly violated
plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights) (cited by Springer v. Albin, 398 F. App'x 427, 429 (10th
Cir. 2010)).
5
See Defs.’ Mem. Supp., Doc. 21.
4
2
Alternatively, defendants contend that the case should be stayed because the
matter is likely to be concluded as a result of the pending dispositive motion, which
plaintiff disputes. At this juncture, the court declines to express any opinion concerning
the merits of the parties’ claims or defenses because they are matters to be determined by
the assigned district judge. But more importantly in this matter, where immunity is at
issue, plaintiff fails to address why the court should not follow its precedent to stay
discovery.
A decision on whether to stay discovery rests in the sound discretion of the court.6
Although the general policy of this district is to proceed with discovery despite pending
dispositive motions,7 there are recognized exceptions to this general rule. Most notable is
the well-established exception when the party requesting stay has asserted absolute or
qualified immunity through a dispositive motion.8 A line of cases from both the United
States Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals validates this exception.9
As stated by the Tenth Circuit in Workman v. Jordan, “[d]iscovery should not be allowed
6
See Kutilek v. Gannon, 132 F.R.D. 296, 297 (D. Kan. 1990); Rubio ex rel. Z.R. v. Turner
Unified Sch. Dist. 202, 2006 WL 681124, at *1 (D. Kan. March 14, 2006).
7
Kutilek, 132 F.R.D. at 297.
8
See, e.g., Pfuetze v. Kansas, 2010 WL 3718836, at *1 (D. Kan. Sept. 14, 2010); Wedel v. Craig,
2010 WL 2545974 (D. Kan., June 22, 2010); Rubio at *1.
9
See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 686 (2009) (noting that a plaintiff “is not entitled to
discovery . . . ” against government officials raising immunity defenses); Behrens v. Pelletier,
516 U.S. 299, 305-07 (1996) (holding that immunity is “an entitlement not to stand trial or face
the other burdens of litigation, conditioned on the resolution of the . . . immunity question”);
Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231–33 (1991) (noting, “One of the purposes of immunity . . . is
to spare a defendant not only unwarranted liability, but unwarranted demands customarily
imposed upon those defending a long drawn out lawsuit.”); Brush v. Rinne, 1995 WL 638215, at
*1 (10th Cir. 1995); Workman v. Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 336 (10th Cir. 1992) (holding that when
a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the court should grant the defendant’s request for a stay
of discovery until the immunity issue is resolved).
3
until the court resolves the threshold question” of immunity.10
Therefore, when immunity is asserted by dispositive motion, a stay of discovery is
appropriate pending a ruling on the immunity issue. Here, discovery has not commenced
and a Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b) scheduling conference has not been held. Applying these
standards, the court finds a stay of all proceedings in this matter is legally appropriate and
economical in terms of time and effort for the court, counsel, and the litigants.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ amended motion to stay
discovery (Doc. 22) is GRANTED. All discovery and scheduling deadlines are therefore
stayed pending further order of the court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 12th day of December, 2014.
S/ Karen M. Humphreys
KAREN M. HUMPHREYS
United States Magistrate Judge
10
Workman, 958 F.2d at 336.
4
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?