Croskey v. County of St. Louis et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 8 MOTION for Relief Plaintiff's Motion to Serve Early, Limited Discovery to Identify Unknown Defendants filed by Plaintiff Robbin Croskey. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that "Plaintiff's Motion to Serve Early, Limited Discovery to Identify Unknown Defendants" [#8] is DENIED, with permission to refile at a later date. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on May 20, 2014. (MCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

ROBBIN CROSKEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS,
DR. MARY HASTINGS, UNKNOWN
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS OF
COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS, and
UNKNOWN MEDICAL PERSONNEL
OF COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:14CV867 ERW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion to Serve Early, Limited
Discovery to Identify Unknown Defendants” [ECF No. 8].
On May 6, 2014, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff Robbin Croskey filed a
Complaint asserting claims against Defendants County of St. Louis (“St. Louis County”), Dr.
Mary Hastings, Unknown Correctional Officers of County of St. Louis, and Unknown Medical
Personnel of County of St. Louis (all defendants collectively referred to as “Defendants”) [ECF
No. 1]. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges she suffered injury due to Defendants’ failure to provide
her necessary medical care when she was an inmate in the St. Louis County Justice Center in
June 2011 [ECF No. 1]. The County of St. Louis filed a Waiver of the Service of Summons, and
counsel entered appearance on its behalf, on May 7, 2014 [ECF Nos. 4-6].
Plaintiff filed this Motion on May 9, 2014, requesting an Order to permit early, limited
discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference, to identify the unknown defendants [ECF No. 8].
Plaintiff claims she has narrowed her requests for early discovery to the sole purpose of

identifying the unknown defendants, and she contends her need to name the individual
defendants, and the narrow nature of her requests, outweigh any possible prejudice to St. Louis
County, and will likely reduce the expense of litigation. Plaintiff asserts she has shown good
cause for early, limited discovery in this case, and an Order permitting discovery prior to the Rule
26(f) conference would serve the interest of judicial economy. Plaintiff has attached “Plaintiff’s
Initial Discovery Requests to Defendant County of St. Louis” to her Motion [ECF No. 8-1].
St. Louis County filed its Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Serve
Early Limited Discovery on May 16, 2014 [ECF No. 14]. In its Memorandum, St. Louis County
submits Plaintiff’s proposed discovery is much broader than stated, and is not limited to the
activities included in the Complaint. St. Louis County contends there is nothing unique about the
lawsuit, or Plaintiff’s claims, that supports discovery at this early juncture. The Court agrees.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) prohibits seeking “discovery from any source
before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted
from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation,
or by court order.” Plaintiff, as the party seeking early discovery, bears the burden of
demonstrating good cause, which may be found where “the need for expedited discovery, in
consideration of [the] administration of justice, outweighs prejudice to [the] responding party.”
Progessive Cas. Ins. Co. v. F.D.I.C., 283 F.R.D. 556, 557 (N.D. Iowa 2012); see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1), and (d)(1). Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for limited expedited
discovery; and even if she had, her request is overly broad. Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied,
with permission to refile at a later date.
Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s Motion to Serve Early, Limited Discovery
to Identify Unknown Defendants” [ECF No. 8] is DENIED, with permission to refile at a later
date.
Dated this 20th

day of May, 2014.

E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3