ShareCor, L.L.C. v. Santa Rosa Consulting, Inc. et al
ORDER granting 32 MOTION for Protective Order Seeking A Stay Of Discovery. Discovery in this action pertaining only to Plaintiffs SBE claim is STAYED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 3/10/2017. (LLH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SANTA ROSA CONSULTING, INC.,
Before the Court is defendant Santa Rosa Consulting, Inc.’s (“Santa Rosa”) Motion for
Protective Order Seeking a Stay of Discovery Pending Ruling on Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 32)
filed on February 16, 2017. The motion is opposed. (R. Doc. 34).
Sharecore, LLC (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action in state court on June 21, 2016, asserting
state law breach of contract claims and a single business enterprise (“SBE”) claim. (R. Doc. 1-1,
“Petition”). With regard to the SBE claim, Plaintiff alleges that Santa Rosa and its co-defendant
Sandlot Solutions, Inc. “have overlapping corporate structure, ownership, administrative control
and intertwined nature of the business operations and finances, and as such operate, and have
operated, as a single business enterprise.” (Petition, ¶ 27). Santa Rosa removed the action on
August 4, 2016, asserting that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over the action. (R. Doc. 1).
On August 11, 2016, Santa Rosa filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s SBE claim. (R. Doc.
3). The instant motion seeks a stay of all discovery related to the SBE claim. (R. Doc. 32).
On February 24, 2017, the district judge denied Santa Rosa’s motion to dismiss without
prejudice to refile. (R. Doc. 33). The district judge ordered Plaintiff to file any amended
complaint within 21 days of the ruling denying the motion to dismiss, i.e., March 17, 2017. (R.
Doc. 33 at 8). In so doing, the district judge provided that Defendants may re-urge their motions
directed to the amended complaint, acknowledged some uncertainty in the applicable state law,
and further recognized “defects in ShareCor’s pleadings” as it related to the SBE claim but that it
was not clear if these defects were incurable. (R. Doc. 33 at 7-8).
Plaintiff argues that in light of the denial of Santa Rosa’s motion to dismiss, the instant
motion should be denied as moot. (R. Doc. 34).
Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the Court to issue a protective
order after a showing of good cause “to protect a party or person from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Rule 26(c)’s
“good cause” requirement indicates that the party seeking a protective order has the burden “to
show the necessity of its issuance, which contemplates a particular and specific demonstration of
fact as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements.” In re Terra Int'l, Inc., 134
F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Garrett, 571 F.2d 1323, 1326 n.3 (5th
Cir. 1978)). “A trial court has broad discretion and inherent power to stay discovery until
preliminary questions that may dispose of the case are determined.” Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d
581, 583 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Landry v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n Int’l AFL-CIO, 901 F.2d 404,
436 n.114 (5th Cir. 1990) (“Trial courts possess broad discretion to supervise discovery.”)
Considering the pleadings and the procedural posture of this action, the Court finds good
cause to stay discovery with respect to Plaintiff’s SBE claim1 until Plaintiff has filed an amended
complaint and Santa Rosa has had a reasonable opportunity to renew its motion to dismiss if
applicable. Any party may request the Court to revisit this issue once appropriate briefing is
Based on the foregoing,
The Court takes no position regarding any particular discovery requests issued by the parties, and whether such
requests would solely pertain to the SBE claim and thus subject to this Order.
IT IS ORDERED that the Santa Rosa Consulting, Inc.’s Motion (R. Doc. 32) is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that discovery in this action pertaining only to Plaintiff’s
SBE claim is STAYED. Either party may request that this limited stay be lifted should no
dispositive motion pertaining to the (to be filed) amended complaint or upon completion of the
briefing of any such motion.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on March 10, 2017.
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?