Montanez v. Tritt et al

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM Accordingly, Plaintiffs motions are deemed withdrawn for failure to file supporting briefs. A separate Order follows.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 4/2/15. (jfg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSE MONTANEZ,

Plaintiff,

3:14-cv-1362

v.

(Judge Mariani)

MS. TRITT, et al"
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff, Jose Montanez, an inmate currently confined at the State Correctional
Institution in Frackville, Pennsylvania, initiated the above-captioned action by filing a
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended
complaint and this matter is proceeding on the amended complaint. (Doc. 21).
Presently pending before the Court are Plaintiffs motion to file a second amended
complaint, Plaintiff's motion for discovery, and Defendants' motion to stay discovery
pending disposition of their motion to dismiss the amended complaint. (Docs. 31,32,34).
For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motions will be deemed withdrawn for failure to file
supporting briefs, and Defendants' motion to stay will be granted.

I.

Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery
A district court has discretion to 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 James v. York County Police Dep1,
160 Fed. Appx. 126, 136 (3d Cir. 2005). Briefty deferring discovery in such a case, while

the Court determines the threshold issue of whether a complaint has sufficient merit to go

forward, recognizes that 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 their 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 substantial grounds'
or, stated another way, 'doles] 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. Sch. of Educ., 205 F.R.D. 433, 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
In the instant matter, astay of discovery is clearly appropriate. Presently pending on
the docket is Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. (Doc. 25).
Defendants maintain that if the pending motion to dismiss is granted, "it will obviate the
need for discovery entirely thus saving time and money for the Department at no loss to
Plaintiff." (Doc. 35, pp. 2-3). Thus, it would be a waste of government resources for
Defendants to respond to discovery requests when such a need may be eliminated or
greatly narrowed, and where Defendants may potentially be dismissed from this action.
Accordingly, Defendants' motion to stay will be granted, and discovery stayed in this action

2

pending resolution of the motion to dismiss.
II.

Plaintiff's Motions
As stated, Plaintiff filed a motion to file a second amended complaint and a motion

for discovery. (Docs. 31, 32). Plaintiff failed to file briefs in support of the motions as
required by Middle District of Pennsylvania Local Rule 7.5. 1 Local Rule 7.5 provides that
"[w]ithin fourteen (14) days after the filing of any motion, the party filing the motion shall file
a brief in support of the motion.... If a supporting brief is not filed within the time provided in
this rule the motion shall be deemed to be withdrawn." M.D. Pa. Local Rule 7.5. Plaintiffs
motions are simply devoid of any facts or reasons in support of his requests. See (Docs.
31, 32). Accordingly, Plaintiffs motions are deemed withdrawn for failure to file supporting
briefs.
Aseparate Order follows.

Cf2~

Date: April ;;... ,2015

Robert D. Mariani
United States District Judge

A copy of Local Rule 7.5 is attached to this Court's Standing Practice Order, which was
issued to Plaintiff on July 17, 2014. (Doc.4).

3