United States of America et al v. Jackson HMA LLC et al

Filing 62

ORDER granting 53 Motion to Stay Proceedings Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 12/22/17 (RBM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
W. BLAKE VANDERLAN, M.D.

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-cv-767-DPJ-FKB

JACKSON HMA, LLC d/b/a Central
Mississippi Medical Center

DEFENDANT

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
Before the Court is a Motion to Stay [53] filed by Defendant Jackson HMA, LLC (“Jackson
HMA”). The motion seeks a stay of discovery, pending the Court’s ruling on a dispositive motion.
Having considered the parties’ filings and oral argument of counsel during a telephonic conference
on December 21, 2017, the Court finds that the motion should be granted.
Jackson HMA filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on November 9,
2017. [51]. Jackson HMA contends that the Complaint fails to state a cognizable claim under the
False Claims Act. [51] at 1. Specifically, it argues that the False Claims Act does not permit
recovery based on alleged Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (“EMTALA”) violations
or any of Vanderlan’s other claims. Id. at 1-2. Additionally, Jackson HMA contends that even if
Vanderlan could state a valid FCA claim, it would be precluded by the False Claims Act’s “public
disclosure bar.” Id. at 2. Jackson HMA requests that the Court stay discovery, pending a ruling on
the motion to dismiss, to potentially avoid voluminous and expensive discovery. [53] at 5.
The Court has discretion to stay discovery pending consideration and ruling on a motion
to dismiss.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has recognized that a stay
of discovery is appropriate where a preliminary motion asking for dismissal of the
case is pending because: (1) such motions are decided based on the content of the
complaint only, without regard to facts obtained during discovery; and (2) the
1

motion, if granted, would dispose of the case, thus avoiding the effort and expense
of discovery.
Dowdy & Dowdy P'ship v. Arbitron Inc., No. 2:09CV253 KS-MTP, 2010 WL 3893915, at *1 (S.D.
Miss. Sept. 30, 2010)(citing Landry v. Air Line Pilots Ass ‘n Int'l AFL–CIO, 901 F.2d 404, 435–
36 (5th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 244 (1990); Nankivil v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 216 F.
RD. 689 (M.D.Fla.2003), aff'd, 87 Fed. Appx. 713 (11th Cir.2003)).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides that a court “may, for good cause shown,
issue an order to protect a party or person from ... undue burden or expense.” “Good cause may be
shown where a party has filed a dispositive motion, the stay is for a short period of time, and the
opposing party will not be prejudiced.” Dowdy & Dowdy P'ship, , 2010 WL 3893915, at *1 (citing
Spencer Trask Software and In'l Servs., LLC v. Rpost Int'l Lim., 206 F.RD. 367, 368
(S.D.N.Y.2002)).
The Court finds that good causes exists to grant a stay of discovery pending a ruling on the
dispositive motion [51]. Jackson HMA’s motion to dismiss, filed pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 8(a), and 9(b), contends that Vanderlan’s Complaint fails to plead or
sufficiently state legally viable claims under the FCA. Vanderlan has already filed a lengthy
response, and the motion is now fully briefed and ripe for decision by the court. Moreover, Jackson
HMA presents a convincing argument that, given the nature of the claims, the potential cost it
faces in responding to discovery, particularly with regard to collection, identification, and
production of documents, may be substantial. A stay until the Court has ruled on Jackson HMA’s
motion to dismiss would potentially prevent a significant, unnecessary expenditure of resources
by the parties.

2

The Court does not anticipate that the stay of discovery will be lengthy, as it will only be
in effect until the Court rules on the pending motion to dismiss. Once the Court has ruled on motion
[51], the Court will either lift the stay or dismiss the case.
The Court also finds that Vanderlan will not be prejudiced by the stay. When discussing
the prejudice he would suffer from a stay, Vanderlan points to the difficulty he will have in meeting
deadlines, particularly his expert designation deadline, in the current scheduling order. [55] at 5.
However, a stay nullifies the current scheduling order, and if the Court denies the motion to
dismiss, a new scheduling order will be entered.
For the reasons given above, IT IS ORDERED that:
The Motion to Stay Discovery [53] is GRANTED. All disclosure requirements and
discovery are hereby stayed pending the Court’s ruling on Jackson HMA’s motion to dismiss [51].
SO ORDERED, this the 22nd of December, 2017
/s/ F. Keith Ball
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3