Bryant v. Cape Girardeau, County of et al

Filing 145

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 144 Joint MOTION to Stay DEFENDANTS JOINT MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY filed by Defendant Charla Earnheart, Defendant Charles Pewitt: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 144 ) is GRANTED. Motion is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk on 03/27/2020. (CMH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MATTHEW GLENN BRYANT,
Plaintiff,
v.
NED BOYD, U.S. Marshal for the Eastern
District of Missouri, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:18-CV-117-SEP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Defendants’ Joint Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc.
[144]). Although the deadline for Plaintiff Matthew Bryant’s (“Bryant”) response has not
passed, Bryant never responded to an earlier-filed Motion to Stay (Doc. [132]), and the deadline
for the completion of all discovery in this case is now imminent. Therefore, the Court will
consider this motion immediately. For the reasons below, Defendants’ Joint Motion to Stay
Discovery will be granted.
Background
Defendants are employees of the Cape Girardeau County Jail (“Jail”) in Cape Girardeau,
Missouri. Bryant alleges that Defendants denied him proper medical treatment in violation of his
civil rights while he was incarcerated in the Jail. Doc. [1]. Specifically, Bryant alleges that the
Jail’s officers and medical staff violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing
to prescribe him medically necessary medications, failing to provide adequate mental health
treatment, and failing to provide substance abuse treatment. Id. at ¶¶ 22-28.

The Court issued an Amended Case Management Order on August 27, 2019, which gave
the parties until October 28, 2019, to complete their Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures. Doc. [120].
Bryant has not produced his Initial Disclosures, nor has he responded to Defendants’ various
discovery requests. Defendants have filed several motions to compel Bryant to comply with his
discovery obligations. Docs. [124], [130], [136], [139]. To date, Bryant has neither complied
with Defendants’ requests nor responded to their motions to compel. Defendants Pewitt and
Earnheart have moved to dismiss this case under Rule 41(b) for Bryant’s failure to comply with
this Court’s Amended Case Management Order. Doc. [127].
In this most recent motion to stay discovery until the Court rules on the pending motions,
Defendants again cite Bryant’s noncompliance and the adverse consequences for Defendants of
denying a stay. Doc. [144]. They also point to the practical impediments caused by the Covid19 pandemic as an additional rationale for a stay. Id.
Discussion
A district court’s “power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every
court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for
itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see
also Contracting Nw., Inc. v. City of Fredericksburg, 713 F.2d 382, 387 (8th Cir. 1983)
(addressing a stay pending arbitration and finding a district court has “the inherent power to
grant [a] stay in order to control its docket, conserve judicial resources, and provide for a just
determination of the cases pending before it”). The issuance of a stay is “an exercise of judicial
discretion . . . dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.” Nken v. Holder, 556
U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (discussing a stay pending adjudication of the petitioner’s petition for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ removal order) (internal quotation marks omitted)

(quoting Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 672-73 (1926)). The litigant seeking
the stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify a stay. Id. at 433-34.
“When determining whether to stay discovery, the Court should consider the following
factors: (1) whether there is a strong showing that a claim is unmeritorious; (2) the breadth of
discovery and burden of responding to it; and (3) the risk of unfair prejudice to the party
opposing the stay.” Benford v. Grisham, No. 1:18 CV 5 JMB, 2019 WL 1359255, at *1 (E.D.
Mo. March 26, 2019) (citing Allen v. Agreliant Genetics, LLC, 2016 WL 5416418, at * 2 (N.D.
Iowa Sept. 26, 2016)).
The Court finds that these factors weigh in favor of a stay of discovery in this case.
Defendants’ arguments for dismissal are colorable. The breadth of discovery in this case is
substantial, and the Covid-19 pandemic will only compound the difficulty the parties have
experienced obtaining discovery. A stay will cause Bryant no unfair prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. [144]) is
GRANTED.
Dated this 27th day of March, 2020.

SARAH E. PITLYK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE