Templeton et al v. Dotson et al
Filing
36
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of defendant Jon Belmar for expedited discovery [Doc. # 23] is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs motion to quash deposition notices [Doc. # 22] is granted. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 1/5/2015. (KMS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ALEXIS TEMPLETON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SAM DOTSON, CHIEF OF POLICE,
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:14-CV-2019 (CEJ)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the court is the motion of defendant Jon Belmar for expedited discovery.
The defendant seeks to take the deposition of three of the plaintiffs and two
non-parties in advance of the preliminary injunction hearing on January 6, 2015.
Also before the court is the related motion of the plaintiffs to quash the deposition
notices served by defendant Belmar.
Rule 26(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may
not seek discovery from any source before the parties have met and conferred, unless
“authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.”
In determining
whether a party is entitled to expedited discovery, this district utilizes a “good cause”
standard.
See
Meritain Health, Inc. v. Express Scripts, Inc., 2012 WL 1320147
(E.D. Mo. 2012) [citing Cook v. Williams, 2009 WL 3246877 *1 (E.D. Mo. 2009) and
Monsanto Company v. Woods, 250 F.R.D. 411 (E.D. Mo. 2008)].
Under that
standard, the party seeking discovery is required to show that the need for expedited
discovery outweighs the prejudice to the responding party. Id. (citations omitted).
In this case, defendant Belmar seeks expedited discovery to prepare for the
preliminary
injunction
hearing.
In
this
context,
the
court
considers
the
reasonableness of the request, taking into account the breadth of the requested
discovery, the purpose of the requested discovery, and the burden that would be
imposed on the plaintiffs to comply with the discovery requests. Id. at *2.
Unlike the plaintiffs seeking expedited discovery in Meritain, defendant Belmar
has not identified the information he seeks to obtain through the depositions nor does
he explain how the information is necessary to preparing for the preliminary
injunction hearing.
Instead, the defendant merely states in conclusory fashion that
there is “good cause” for expedited discovery.
Because the defendant has failed to
sufficiently support his request, the court cannot find that expedited discovery is
appropriate in this case. Consequently, the notices of deposition will be quashed.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of defendant Jon Belmar for
expedited discovery [Doc. # 23] is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion to quash deposition
notices [Doc. # 22] is granted.
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 5th day of January, 2015.
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?