Williams et al v. Lambert et al

Filing 33

ORDER denying 5 Motion for Expedited Discovery. The 16 , 25 Motions for Extension of Time to Respond are denied as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr on 5/18/2016. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RICHARD WILLIAMS, individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated,

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 16-251-SDD-RLB

VERSUS
MARILYN M. LAMBERT, in her official
capacity as Judge of Ascension Parish
Court, ET AL.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Discovery (R. Doc. 5) filed on April
19, 2016, the day this action was commenced. Plaintiff served the Complaint on the defendants
after filing the instant motion. (See R. Docs. 8, 9, 10, 11).
Also before the Court are motions for extensions of the deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s
motion for expedited discovery filed by defendants Bridget Hanna (R. Doc. 16) and Sherman
Jackson (R. Doc. 25).
Plaintiff’s Class Action Complaint alleges that the defendants are engaged in a “financial
arrangement that requires the Ascension Parish Judge to collect a Conviction Fee each time she
convicts a defendant or accepts a guilty plea,” which incentivizes the Parish Judge, in violation
of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, to find criminal
defendants to be guilty. (R. Doc. 1 at 1-2). Plaintiff has moved for a preliminary injunction,
arguing, among other things, that “Plaintiff and other members of the putative class will suffer
irreparable harm through the inherent injury in being forced to undergo biased criminal
proceedings that violate due process requirements.” (R. Doc. 3 at 2).

Plaintiff’s instant motion for expedited discovery seeks an order allowing Plaintiff to
conduct a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition “of the Ascension Parish Court on the topic of the Court’s
budget, revenue, finances, and expenditures.” (R. Doc. 5 at 1). Plaintiff argues that this
requested pre-service discovery is “required because men and women regularly are convicted of
criminal charges by the Parish Judge, and an injunction is necessary to ensure that convictions
going forward are free of financial bias.” (R. Doc. 5-1 at 1).
While parties generally cannot conduct discovery, including depositions, prior to holding
a Rule 26(f) conference, the Court may order such discovery to occur. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(d)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(iii) (“A party must obtain leave of court . . . if the
parties have not stipulated to the deposition and . . . the party seeks to take the deposition before
the time specified in Rule 26(d). . . .”). To obtain leave to conduct discovery prior to a Rule
26(f) conference, the moving party must demonstrate good cause by establishing that the
administration of justice outweighs the prejudice to the responding party. See Energy Prod.
Corp. v. Northfield Ins. Co., No. 10-0933, 2010 WL 3184232, at *3 (E.D. La. Aug. 6, 2010)
(denying discovery prior to Rule 26(f) conference where good cause standard not satisfied); see
also St. Louis Grp., Inc. v. Metals & Additives Corp., 275 F.R.D. 236, 241 (S.D. Tex. 2011)
(same).
Here, Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for discovery to be conducted prior to a
Rule 26(f) conference. Foremost, Plaintiff filed the instant motion, and sought the relief
requested in the motion, prior to service of the Complaint on any of the named defendants. The
defendants would be unduly prejudiced by allowing such discovery to be conducted prior to their
knowledge of the lawsuit, much less an opportunity to oppose the relief requested. Furthermore,
Plaintiff seeks expedited discovery for the sole purpose of gathering information in support of his

2

motion for an anticipated hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiff
has not demonstrated, through the instant motion, that he would suffer any irreparable harm
should the Court not allow him to proceed the requested deposition.1
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Discovery (R. Doc. 5) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Bridge Hanna’s motion for extension of
time to respond (R. Doc. 16) and defendant Sherman Jackson’s motion for extension of time to
respond (R. Doc. 25) are DENIED as moot.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on May 18, 2016.

S

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

This Order in no way rules upon the pending Motion to Certify Class (R. Doc. 2) and Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (R. Doc. 3) pending before the district judge.

3