Simpson v. John Doe

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 23 MOTION to Stay Discovery Pending Dispostion of the Motion to Dismiss filed by James A. Lenker. Signed by Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle on 2/21/18. (ch1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES A. SIMPSON, JR.,
Plaintiff
v.
ELIAS HARBILAS,et al.
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-cv-0514
(KANE, D.J.)
(ARBUCKLE, M.J.)

MEMORANDUM ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY
BACKGROUND:
This prisoner civil rights lawsuit has been assigned to this Court for
resolution. Currently there are two motions to dismiss pending, and unresolved, in
the case. (Docs. 18 & 25). In addition, the defendants have filed a motion to stay
discovery pending resolution of the first motion to dismiss, which has not been
opposed by the plaintiff. (Doc. 23). For the reasons set forth below we will STAY
further discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss filed in this case.
LEGAL STANDARD:
Several basic guiding principles inform our resolution of the instant
discovery issues. At the outset rulings regarding the proper scope and timing of
discovery are matters consigned to the court’s discretion and judgment. Thus, it
has long been held that decisions regarding Rule 37 motions are “committed to the
sound discretion of the district court.” DiGregorio v. First Rediscount Corp., 506
F.2d 781, 788 (3d Cir. 1974). Similarly, issues relating to the timing and scope of
Page 1 of 4

discovery permitted under Rule 26 also rest in the sound discretion of the Court.
Wisniewski v. Johns-Manville Corp., 812 F.2d 81, 90 (3d Cir. 1987). Thus, a
court’s decisions regarding the conduct of discovery will be disturbed only upon a
showing of an abuse of discretion. Marroquin-Manriquez v. I.N.S., 699 F.2d 129,
134 (3d Cir. 1983). This far-reaching discretion extends to rulings by United States
Magistrate Judges on discovery matters. In this regard:
District courts provide magistrate judges with particularly broad
discretion in resolving discovery disputes. See Farmers & Merchs.
Nat'l Bank v. San Clemente Fin. Group Sec., Inc., 174 F.R.D. 572,
585 (D.N.J.1997). When a magistrate judge's decision involves a
discretionary [discovery] matter . . . , “courts in this district have
determined that the clearly erroneous standard implicitly becomes an
abuse of discretion standard.” Saldi v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 224
F.R.D. 169, 174 (E.D.Pa.2004) (citing Scott Paper Co. v. United
States, 943 F.Supp. 501, 502 (E.D.Pa.1996)). Under that standard, a
magistrate judge's discovery ruling “is entitled to great deference and
is reversible only for abuse of discretion.” Kresefky v. Panasonic
Commc'ns and Sys. Co., 169 F.R.D. 54, 64 (D.N.J.1996); see also
Hasbrouck v. BankAmerica Hous. Servs., 190 F.R.D. 42, 44-45
(N.D.N.Y.1999) (holding that discovery rulings are reviewed under
abuse of discretion standard rather than de novo standard); EEOC v.
Mr. Gold, Inc., 223 F.R.D. 100, 102 (E.D.N.Y.2004) (holding that a
magistrate judge's resolution of discovery disputes deserves
substantial deference and should be reversed only if there is an abuse
of discretion).
Halsey v. Pfeiffer, No. 09-1138, 2010 WL 3735702, *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 17, 2010).
We also note that our broad discretion over discovery matters extends to
decisions under Rule 26 relating to the issuance of protective orders limiting and
regulating the timing of discovery. Indeed, it is undisputed that: “ ‘[t]he grant and
Page 2 of 4

nature of [a protective order] is singularly within the discretion of the district court
and may be reversed only on a clear showing of abuse of discretion.’ Galella v.
Onassis, 487 F.2d 986, 997 (2d Cir.1973) (citation omitted).” Dove v. Atlantic
Capital Corp., 963 F.2d 15, 19 (2d Cir. 1992).
This discretion is guided, however, by certain basic principles. One of these
cardinal principles, governing the exercise of discretion in this field, is that the
district court may properly defer or delay discovery while it considers a potentially
dispositive pretrial motion, provided the district court concludes that the pretrial
motion does not, on its face, appear groundless. See, e.g., James v. York County
Police Dep’t, 160 F.App’x 126, 136 (3d Cir. 2005); Nolan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
973 F.2d 843,849 (10th Cir. 1992); Johnson v. New York Univ. Sch. of Ed., 205
F.R.D. 433, 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Briefly deferring discovery in such a case,
while the court determines the threshold issue of whether a complaint has
sufficient merit to go forward, recognizes a simple, fundamental truth: Parties who
file motions which may present potentially meritorious and complete legal
defenses to civil actions should not be put to the time, expense and burden of
factual discovery until after these claimed legal defenses are addressed by the
court.
In such instances, it is clearly established that:
“[A] stay of discovery is appropriate pending resolution of a
potentially dispositive motion where the motion ‘appear[s] to have
Page 3 of 4

substantial grounds' or, stated another way, ‘do[es] not appear to be
without foundation in law.’ ” In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust
Litigation, 2002 WL 88278, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2002) (quoting
Chrysler Capital Corp. v. Century Power Corp., 137 F.R.D. 209, 20910 (S.D.N.Y.1991)) ( citing Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp.,
203 F.R.D. 92, 2001 WL 396422, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2001);
Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc., 1996 WL 101277, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. March 7, 1996)).
Johnson v. New York Univ. School of Educ., 205 F.R.D. 433, 434 (S.D.N.Y.
2002).
Guided by these legal tenets we conclude that further discovery should be
briefly stayed at this time until after the court resolves the pending motion to
dismiss. We reach this conclusion in accordance with settled case law, finding that:
“[A] stay of discovery is appropriate pend
ing resolution of a potentially dispositive motion where the motion ‘appear[s] to
have substantial grounds' or, stated another way, ‘do[es] not appear to be without
foundation in law.’” Johnson v. New York Univ. School of Educ., 205 F.R.D. 433,
434 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
An appropriate order will follow.
Date: February 21, 2018

BY THE COURT
s/William I. Arbuckle
William I. Arbuckle
U.S. Magistrate Judge

Page 4 of 4