Massey v. Matrix Service Company

Filing 24

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary ; denying 19 Motion for Protective Order; denying 20 Motion to Stay (kjp, Dpty Clk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

JOE D. MASSEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MATRIX SERVICE COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-CV-546-GKF-PJC

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order Staying
Discovery Pending Resolution of Its Motion to Reconsider Order of July 12,
2013. [Dkt. No. 19, 20]. Defendant Matrix Service Co. (“Matrix”) seeks a stay of
discovery while the District Court reconsiders its July 12, 2013 Order denying
Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for a
Motion to Reconsider, Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.
1991); however, the motion has become “one of the more popular indoor
courthouse sports.” State of La. V. Sprint Communications Co., 899 F.S. 282, 284
(M.D. La. 1995). “Such pleadings are becoming an intricate part of motion
practice by which the losing party to a motion obtains a second bite at the
apple – a chance to reargue and sometimes submit additional argument and

1

authority in support of his lost motion.” Shields v. Shetler, 120 F.R.D. 123, 126
(D.Colo.1988).
Nevertheless, Courts review these motions and, when appropriate, grant
relief. As the Court noted in Tomlinson v. Combined Underwriters Life Ins. Co.,
684 f.Supp.2d 1296 (N.D.Okla. 2010):
The Court treats Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider as arising under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) because the underlying
opinion and order is not a final order or judgment. See Raytheon
Constructors, Inc. v. Asarco Inc., 368 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir.2003).
The Court may, however, apply the legal standards applicable to a
motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). See, e.g., Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of
Color Tile, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand LLP, 322 F.3d 147, 167 (2d
Cir.2003).
Id. at 1299.
The Court then outlined the appropriate grounds for relief:
A motion to reconsider, like a motion to alter or amend judgment,
should be granted only upon the following grounds: “(1) an
intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence
previously unavailable, [or] (3) the need to correct clear error or
prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d
1005, 1012 (10th Cir.2000); see Adams v. Reliance Standard Life Ins.
Co., 225 F.3d 1179, 1186 n. 5 (10th Cir.2000).
Id.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), a court has broad discretion to grant a
protective order, including a stay of discovery. Chambers v. Bd. Of County Com’rs
of County of Eagle, 2013 WL 4052397, *2 (D. Colo. August 12, 2013). The moving
party must establish good cause for such an Order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

2

Here, Matrix contends that the Court’s ruling on its pending Motion to
Reconsider “is likely to finally conclude this litigation.” [Dkt. No. 19 at 4]. In
other words, Matrix believes the District Court is likely to change its opinion on
the same matter it decided two months ago. Matrix contends that following the
Court’s ruling on its Motion to Enforce, it acquired “new evidence”
demonstrating that Plaintiff did not consider certain terms in the proposed
Settlement Agreement to be material. [Dkt. No. 19, at 5]. Matrix also argues
that a discovery stay will not impact resolution of the pending dispositive
motion and that going forward with discovery will caused undue burden on
Matrix. [Id. at 6-7]. Not surprising, Plaintiff disagrees with Matrix’s assessment
of all of these issues. [Dkt. No. 22, at 3-5].
This Court has addressed this issue in Samson Resources Co. v. J. Aron &
Co., 2009 WL 1606564 (N.D.Okla. June 8, 2009):

Although it is within a district court’s discretion to stay discovery pursuant
to Rule 26(c) pending the outcome of a dispositive motion, see Monreal v.
Potter, 367 F.3d 1224, 1238 (10th Cir. 2004), such stays are not routinely
granted by this Court or other district courts within the Tenth Circuit. See
TSM Assoc., LLC v. Tractor Supply Co., No. 08-CV-230-JHP-FHM, 2008
WL 2404818, at *1 (N.D. Okla. June 11, 2008) (McCarthy, J.) (“Unless
some compelling reason is presented, in the usual case discovery is not
stayed as Defendant requests.”); Kutilek v. Gannon, 132 F.R.D. 296, 29798 (D. Kan. 1990) (“The general policy in this district is not to stay
discovery even though dispositive motions are pending.”). Nonetheless,
such stays may be appropriate “where the case is likely to be finally
concluded as a result of the ruling thereon, where the facts sought through
uncompleted discovery would not affect the resolution of the motion, or
where discovery on all issues of the broad complaint would be wasteful and
burdensome.” Kutilek, 132 F.R.D. at 298. Factors that courts may consider
in deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery include: “(1) plaintiff’s
3

interests in proceeding expeditiously with the civil action and the potential
prejudice to plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on the defendants; (3) the
convenience to the court; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil
litigation; and (5) the public interest.” Schmaltz v. Smithkline Beecham
Corp., No. 08-CV-119, 2008 WL 3845260, at *1 (D. Colo. Aug. 15, 2008).
Id. at *1.
After reviewing the briefs submitted herein and considering the factors set
forth in Samson Resources and Tomlinson, as well as other applicable legal
authority, the Court concludes that Matrix has failed to establish good cause for
the relief it seeks.
ACCORDINGLY, the Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery [Dkt.
19, 20] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of September 2013.

4