Victor v. Huber et al
Filing
34
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the defendants motion to stay discovery (Doc. 32 ) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the defendants shall file a response to the plaintiffs motion to file a supplemental com plaint, (Doc. 27 .), in accordance withLocal Rule 7.6 on or before July 16, 2012. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.7 the movant may then file a reply brief on or before July 30, 2012. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants shall file a motion to dismiss , or in the alternative, for summary judgment and brief on or before July 30, 2012. Theplaintiff shall file a response to the motion in accordance with Local Rule 7.6 on or before August 20, 2012. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.7 the defendants may then file a reply brief on or before September 3, 2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on July 2, 2012. (kjn )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM VICTOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
C.O. HUBER, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil No. 3:12-CV-282
(Judge Nealon)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I.
Statement of Facts and of the Case
This case is a civil rights action filed by William Victor, a state prisoner
presently incarcerated by the Department of Corrections at the State Correctional
Institution at Forest (“SCI-Forest”). (Doc. 1.) On February 28, 2012, by Report and
Recommendation, we recommended that several of the original named defendants be
dismissed from this action. (Doc. 4.) This Report and Recommendation was adopted
on March 19, 2012. (Doc. 9.) On March 30, 2012, the Court ordered that plaintiff’s
request to have a specific claim stricken from the complaint be granted, and plaintiff
was further directed to file an amended complaint by April 16, 2012. (Doc. 12.)
Victor filed an amended complaint on April 6, 2012, (Doc. 16.), but then filed
a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint, along with a supporting brief.
(Docs. 27, 28.) Thus, Victor’s complaint in this action continues to shift and change,
and no ruling has been made regarding whether Victor should be permitted to submit
yet another supplemental, amended complaint in this lawsuit.
On June 11, 2012, counsel entered an appearance on behalf of the defendants
in this litigation. Even though Victor has not yet concluded amendment of his
pleadings, on June 15, 2012, the plaintiff served a list of requested discovery
documents on the defendants. (Doc. 32, Ex. A.) The defendants have now moved to
stay discovery, asserting that they intend to file a potentially dispositive motion in
this matter. (Doc. 32.) For the reasons set forth below, this motion will be granted,
and we will set a schedule for pre-discovery motions practice in this lawsuit.
II.
Discussion
A.
Guiding Principles Governing Discovery Motions Practice
Several basic guiding principles inform our resolution of the instant motion.
At the outset, issues regarding the proper scope of discovery, and the extent to which
discovery may be compelled, are matters consigned to the court’s discretion and
judgment. It has long been held that decisions regarding discovery issues and
motions to compel are “committed to the sound discretion of the district court.”
2
DiGregorio v. First Rediscount Corp., 506 F.2d 781, 788 (3d Cir. 1974). Similarly,
issues relating to the scope of 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).
3
This broad discretion over discovery matters extends to decisions under Rule
26(c) relating to the issuance of protective orders limiting and regulating the timing
of discovery. Indeed, it is undisputed that: “ ‘[t]he grant and 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). 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 motions. 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:
4
“[A] stay of discovery is appropriate pending 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.’ ” 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, 209-10
(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); AntiMonopoly, 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 Victor’s various discovery
requests should be stayed at this time pending resolution of both Victor’s motion to
supplement his complaint, and the anticipated motion to dismiss that the defendants
have stated they intend to file in this case. In this regard, we first note that Victor’s
motion to file a supplemental complaint, if granted, would significantly change the
legal terrain of this lawsuit, and shape the proper scope of discovery in this matter.
Similarly, the defendants have clearly stated that they intend to file a potentially
dispositive motion in this case. This potentially dispositive motion may also redefine
the scope of this litigation in ways which would profoundly affect discovery in this
lawsuit. Where both parties are advancing motions which seek to fundamentally alter
the legal landscape in a case, we conclude, consistent with settled case law, that:
“[A] stay of discovery is appropriate pending resolution of [these]
motion where the motion ‘appear[s] to have substantial grounds' or,
5
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, 209-10 (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).
Therefore, we will defer further discovery pending resolution of these preliminary
motions.
An appropriate order follows:
III.
Order
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion to stay
discovery (Doc. 32) is GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that the defendants shall file a response to the
plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental complaint, (Doc. 27.), in accordance with
Local Rule 7.6 on or before July 16, 2012. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.7 the movant
may then file a reply brief on or before July 30, 2012.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants shall file a motion to dismiss,
or in the alternative, for summary judgment and brief on or before July 30, 2012. The
plaintiff shall file a response to the motion in accordance with Local Rule 7.6 on or
before August 20, 2012. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.7 the defendants may then file a
6
reply brief on or before September 3, 2012. All briefs must conform to the
requirements prescribed by Local Rule 7.8.
So ordered this 2nd day of July 2012.
S/Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge
7
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?