Phelps v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 48

ORDER granting 33 Motion to Stay Discovery. Any further briefs regarding pending motions to compel due within 7 days after the Court issues its summary judgment ruling. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 8/29/2014. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
WILLIAM C. PHELPS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-14-208-D

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant State Farm Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion
to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc.
No. 33]. Plaintiff William C. Phelps has promptly objected to the Motion, which is fully
briefed and at issue.
Defendant asks the Court to order a stay of all discovery, except a deposition of
Plaintiff requested by his counsel, pending a ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment on Statute of Limitations, and Alternative Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
on the Legitimate Dispute Doctrine [Doc. No. 29]. Defendant urges the Court to exercise
its inherent authority to manage its docket for the efficient use of judicial resources, as
authorized by Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Defendant believes
it has a complete defense to Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract seeking uninsured
motorist benefits allegedly due under an automobile insurance policy, that is, the claim is

barred by the statute of limitations.1 At the least, Defendant contends its limitations defense
presents a legitimate coverage dispute that prevents a tort recovery on Plaintiff’s bad faith
claim. Defendant points to numerous discovery disputes between the parties related to the
bad faith claim or allegations of bad faith litigation conduct, and argues that substantial
resources of the Court and the parties could be saved if discovery is stayed until a summary
judgment decision is made.
Plaintiff states that Defendant’s belief in the strength of its summary judgment
position is not a sufficient ground to put his case on hold while waiting for the Court to
decide the motion. In Plaintiff’s view, Defendant’s summary judgment motion “is borderline
frivolous” and has “no realistic chance” of success. See Pl.’s Resp. [Doc. No. 36] at 2.2
Plaintiff also cites his age (77 years) and “relatively poor health” as reasons why he needs
to proceed with trial preparation. See id. Plaintiff states his belief that Defendant’s request
for a stay is designed to avoid unfavorable rulings on his pending motions to compel
discovery, including a finding that Defendant has engaged in “discovery abuse” by
withholding documents based on unfounded claims of privilege and has failed to instruct its
employees regarding a “litigation hold.” Id. at 12.

1

Defendant takes the position that Plaintiff’s uninsured motorist claim was settled in 2003 and the
statute of limitations for any breach of contract claim began to run at that time, not when Plaintiff later
attempted to reopen the claim and obtain additional benefits in 2011.
2

Within a short time after Defendant’s Motion to Stay was fully briefed, Plaintiff also filed his
response in opposition to the summary judgment motion, which fully explains his position.

2

In reply, Defendant argues the merits of its summary judgment position. It contends
that the statute of limitations presents a “threshold question” that can easily resolve the case,
and that Plaintiff’s multiple motions to compel are irrelevant to the summary judgment
issues. Defendant further argues that judicial economy is best served by devoting the Court’s
resources to dispositive issues and other cases on its docket rather than the numerous pending
discovery disputes in this case. In addition to four motions to compel by Plaintiff, including
one filed after Defendant’s reply brief, the Court notes that Defendant has also filed a motion
to compel. Only two of these motions are fully briefed.
Upon consideration, the Court finds it difficult to assess the premise of Defendant’s
request for a stay of discovery – a likelihood of success on its pending summary judgment
motion – before the issues are fully briefed. However, several pertinent facts seem clear.
First, Plaintiff does not disagree with Defendant’s contention that the parties’ numerous
discovery disputes concern matters that would be irrelevant if Defendant’s motion is even
partially successful, that is, if Plaintiff’s bad faith claim is found to lack merit. The pending
disputes may only be the first round; once Plaintiff’s pending motions are resolved, he has
stated his intention to pursue additional areas of inquiry. See Pl.’s Reply Br., Second Motion
to Compel [Doc. No. 44] at 2 (stating that if no litigation hold was issued, “Plaintiff intends
to pursue extensive electronic discovery”). Second, no additional discovery is needed before
a summary judgment ruling can be made; Plaintiff has already filed his response. Third,
Plaintiff recently filed his own motion to extend all remaining deadlines in the case due to

3

a lack of progress in completing discovery. Under the amended case schedule entered at
Plaintiff’s request, the discovery cut-off is now December 5, 2014.
Under the circumstances shown by the record, it appears that a stay of discovery will
not cause any real prejudice to Plaintiff but may result in substantial savings of time and
resources by the Court and the parties if there is any merit in Defendant’s summary judgment
motion. Accordingly, the Court finds that a brief stay of discovery for the period of time
needed to rule on Defendant’s dispositive motion is warranted. See Diaz v. Paul J. Kennedy
Law Firm, 289 F.3d 671, 674 (10th Cir. 2002) (no abuse of discretion to stay discovery that
was not needed to resolve summary judgment motion).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery [Doc.
No. 33] is GRANTED. No further discovery shall be conducted until the Court rules on
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Statute of Limitations, and Alternative
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Legitimate Dispute Doctrine [Doc. No. 29],
except the parties may engage in discovery by agreement, including Plaintiff’s deposition,
during the pendency of the stay. Any further briefs regarding pending motions to compel
discovery shall be filed within 7 days after the Court issues its summary judgment ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of August, 2014.

4