Thompson v. General Motors LLC et al

Filing 24

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 17 Motion for Discovery. GM must propound its discovery no later than 4/18/16. Responses to GM's discovery are due by 5/2/16. GM's response to Plaintiff's motion to remand 14 is due 5/16/16. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 4/14/16. (ncb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

MARCUS JARAL THOMPSON
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16CV00026-DMB-JMV

GENERAL MOTORS LLC AND THE
ESTATE OF KEVIN MONZON, DECEASED

DEFENDANTS

ORDER

This matter is before the court on motion [17] of Defendant General Motors LLC (“GM”)
to conduct discovery related to its opposition to the motion to remand this case.1 GM’s asserted
bases for removal of the case are that the non-diverse defendant, Estate of Monzon, has been
improperly joined as a defendant because 1) the plaintiff has no real expectation of recovering
any judgment he might obtain against the estate’s assets as there are no assets and 2) the
plaintiff’s sole purpose in bringing suit against the non-diverse defendant is to defeat diversity
jurisdiction and, otherwise, the plaintiff is without any purpose to prosecute the action in good
faith against the non-diverse defendant.
The plaintiff contends that neither ground is a proper basis for removal, and, therefore,
discovery about those grounds is improper. Alternatively, plaintiff contends that the discovery
requested is overly broad and vague.
For the following reasons, the court finds that some limited remand related discovery is
appropriate. However, in doing so the undersigned hastens to add that this ruling is not a

1

For brevity’s sake, the facts of the case have not been reiterated here but are available on
the docket at, inter alia, documents [14] & [21].

comment on the propriety of the motion to remand the case currently pending before the district
judge. Instead, some limited discovery is being permitted as it might reveal facts relevant to the
asserted factual basis for remand, and generally, in this district, such limited discovery,
consistent with the dictates of Smallwood v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 385 F.3d
568 (5th Cir. 2004)(en banc), is permitted if tightly tethered to the remand related facts
underpinning a charge of improper joinder. See Sheffield v. J.T. Thorpe & Sons, Inc., 2014 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 114342 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 18, 2014)(allowing remand related discovery as to
improper joinder arguments). This practice is consistent with L.U.Civ.R. 16(b)(1)(B) which
provides in relevant part that the filing of a remand motion does not stay discovery relevant to
remand issues:
A motion to remand . . . will stay the attorney conference and disclosure
requirements and all discovery not relevant to the remand . . . issue and will stay
the parties’ obligation to make disclosures pending the court’s ruling on the
motion[]. At the time the remand motion . . . is filed, the movant shall submit to
the magistrate judge an order granting the stay but permitting discovery
concerning only the remand . . . issue.
L.U.Civ.R. 16(b)(1)(B) (emphasis added).
Nevertheless, because the discovery sought by GM is not appropriately narrowly drawn,
only a more abbreviated version of it will be permitted as follows:
A. To The Estate of Monzon:
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify all assets of the Estate of Kevin Monzon.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify the name and address of the Insurance Company and the
policy number of every insurance policy that may be available to pay a judgment against the
Estate of Kevin Monzon for the claims of negligence asserted by Marcus J. Thompson in this
lawsuit.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Have you made any formal or informal agreement with anyone,

including Marcus J. Thompson (or anyone on his behalf), which would limit your liability to
anyone for any of the damages sued upon in this case? If so, state the terms of the agreement
and the parties to it.
B. To Thompson:
INTERROGATORY: Have you made any formal or informal agreement with the Monzon
Estate (or anyone on its behalf), which would limit the Estate’s liability for any of the damages
sued upon in this case? If so, state the terms of the agreement and the parties to it.
The court will further permit a single interrogatory to each Thompson and the Estate
concerning whether there are any agreements or understandings related to limiting the expenses
occasioned in defending the Estate against the claims of Thompson.
GM must propound its discovery no later than 4/18/16. Responses to GM’s
discovery are due by 5/2/16. GM’s response to Plaintiff’s motion to remand [14] is due
5/16/16.
So ordered this the 14th day of April, 2016.

/s/ Jane M. Virden
U.S. Magistrate Judge

3