MORT et al v. LAWRENCE COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES et al

Filing 41

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION to 40 Motion to Stay, filed by ELIZABETH MORT. (Johnson, Quinn)

882201. i i

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYL VANIA
ELIZABETH MORT and ALEX
RODRIGUEZ,

)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.

LAWRNCE COUNTY CHILDREN AND
YOUTH SERVICES; LAWRENCE
COUNTY; CHRISSY MONTAGUE,
Lawrence County Children and Youth
Services Caseworker; and JAMESON
HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.

)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-01438-DSC

)
)
)

)
)
)

)

Defendants.

)

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY
Plaintiffs Elizabeth Mort and Alex Rodriguez, by and through their undersigned counsel,
submit this Response in Opposition to the Motion for Stay of Discovery filed by Defendants

Lawrence County Children and Youth Services, Lawrence County (collectively referred to as

"LCCYS") and Chrssy Montague ("Defendant Montague" or "Montague") seeking a stay of
discovery until the disposition of the Defendants' pending Motions to Dismiss.

1 For the reasons

that follow, this Court should deny the Motion for Stay.

BACKGROUND
On December 30, 2010 and Januar 17,2011, respectively, Defendant Jamestown Health

System, Inc. ("Jamestown") and Defendants LCCYS and Montague fied separate Motions to
Dismiss certain of the claims in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs responded to those
Motions on February 23, 2011. In their opposition, Plaintiffs provided substantial authority in

1 Defendant Jamestown Health System, Inc. joins in the request for the stay.

882201.1

support of their claims against Defendants and argued that the motions to dismiss were
prematue and not appropriately decided at this stage in the proceedings.

On January 13, 2011, while one of the Motions to Dismiss was pending, the paries
conferred according to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(f) and discussed, among other things, potential
discovery deadlines and the need for discovery prior to the mediation. Durng the course of that

conference neither Defendant raised the possibility of requesting a stay until the Motion to
Dismiss was decided. On February 24, 2011, one day afer Plaintiffs filed their responses in
opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, this Cour held a status conference with counsel
of record during which the paries discussed potential discovery deadlines and the paries agreed

to a discovery deadline of July 25, 2011. Even though both Motions to Dismiss were already
pending at that time of that conference, neither Defendant objected to Plaintiffs' right to take
discovery nor asked the Cour to issue a stay until the Motions to Dismiss were decided. Further,

in the context of the paries' discussion as to when the mediation in this case should be
scheduled, Plaintiffs requested the opportunity to take discovery in advance of the mediation.

Again, neither Defendant raised any objection. In fact, Defendants indicated that they might
proceed to do so as welL. Following the conference, the Cour issued a Case Management Order
on February 25, 2011 setting the discovery deadline for July 25, 2011 and extending the time to
complete mediation until April 25, 2011 so as to give Plaintiffs time to conduct discovery

beforehand.

Following the conference, Plaintiffs promptly served each Defendant with a First Set of

Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (the "Discovery Requests). Neither
Defendant served timely responses to those Discovery Requests before the mediation and

-2-

882201.1

subsequent to the mediation both Defendants requested thirty-day extensions of time to answer
Plaintiffs' discovery requests. Both Defendants have since served their discovery responses.

The Cour should reject Defendants' request for a stay of discovery because: (1) a halt to

the proceedings is not required legally and is disfavored by the Cour; (2) Defendants have
offered no paricular reason why discovery should be stayed; and (3) a stay of discovery would

prejudice Plaintiffs' claims because key evidence may be forgotten or lost with the passage of
time.

ARGUMENT

Despite the impending deadline for the completion of discovery, through their curent
Motion to Stay Discovery, Defendants seek to be relieved, indefinitely, of their obligation to
engage in discovery. The sole substantive basis relied on by Defendants in support of their

Motion to Stay Discovery are the pending Motions to Dismiss.

In deciding whether to stay discovery pending a Motion to Dismiss, this Court should

balance the harm that would result from the delay in discovery against the possibilty that the
motion to dismiss wil be granted and entirely eliminate the need for the discovery. Coca-Cola

Bottling Co. v. Grol, 1993 WL 13139559, *2 (E.D. Pa. March 8, 1993). Motions to stay
discovery are generally disfavored because prolonging or delaying discovery results in increased
litigation expenses and is usually in no one's interest. Id.
F or this reason, a par seeking to stay discovery bears a "heavy burden" of making a

"strong showing" why discovery should be denied. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418,

429 (9th Cir. 1975). Thus, in addition to showing that the benefits of the stay outweigh the
burdens imposed by prolonging the discovery schedule, the moving pary must present specific
facts showing that the interests of justice and considerations of prejudice and undue burden to the

-3-

882201.1

paries require a stay of discovery. Kron Med. Corp. v. Groth, 119 F.R.D. 636, 638 (M.D.N.C.
1988).
Furher, as the Cour states in its own Chamber Rules:

Judge Cercone's general policy is not to grant requests for a stay of discovery
during the pendency of a dispositive motion unless the grounds for the motion are
"obvious." His preference is for the paries to get on with exploring the substance
of a case. He wil, however, entertain motions to stay.
(Chamber Rules, i¡4).

Defendants are unable to meet the heavy burden of establishing the requisite "good

cause" necessar to prevail in their request to stay all discovery. Blanenship, 519 F.2d at 429.
Though LCCYS suggests that the pending dispositive motions "could" dispose of some of the

issues in the case and that a stay wil save the parties time and money, this is tre of all cases in

which dispositive motions are fied and Defendants have not identified other any exceptional
reason why a stay should be imposed here.

In contrast, while Defendants do not meet their burden of showing any exceptional
benefit to a stay, the imposition of such a stay would significantly prejudice Plaintiffs' claims

because it will impede their right to timely proceed with their claims and key evidence may be

become unavailable. Plaintiffs have a right to take discovery in order to prove their claims

against Defendants and this discovery wil necessarly include requests for production of
documents and deposition of witnesses who paricipated in the events set forth in the Complaint.

Inevitably, the more time that passes, the more likely it is that key witnesses' memories could
fade and other evidence lost. If the Motion to Stay Discovery is granted, and Defendants are

indefinitely relieved of their obligation to paricipate in discovery, Plaintiffs wil be materially

prejudiced in their efforts to timely obtain this information. Additionally, the prolongation of

discovery, and resulting prolongation of the case as a whole, may create case management

-4-

882201.1

problems and "cause unecessary litigation expenses and problems." Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v.

Grol, 1993 WL 13139559, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 8, 1993).

Given Defendants' failure to elucidate any paricular reason as to why discovery should
be stayed in this case and the very real prejudice that could result to Plaintiffs from the

imposition of an indefinite stay, Defendant's Motion does not establish the requisite "good
cause" to justify staying all discovery until resolution of the Motions to Dismiss.

-5-

882201.1 i

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Elizabeth Mort and Alex Rodriguez request that the
Cour deny the Motion to Stay Discovery.

MEYER, UNKOVIC & SCOTT LLP

By: Isl Quinn A. Johnson
Patricia L. Dodge
PAID No. 35393
Quinn A. Johnson
PA ID No. 91161
Antoinette Oliver
PA ID No. 206148
535 Smithfeld Street
Suite 1300
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2315
[phone]
pld(fmuslaw.com
qaj(fmuslaw.com
aco(fmuslaw.com

By: Isl Sara J Rose
Sara J. Rose
PAID No. 204936
Witold J . Walczak
PAID No. 62976
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
FOUNDATION OF PENNSYLVANIA
313 Atwood Street
Pittsburgh, P A 15213

[phone]
srose(faclupa.org
vwalczak(faclupa.org
Counsel for Plaintiffs

May 16,2011

882201.1 i

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the within Response in

Opposition to Motion for Stay of Discovery was served this 16th day of May, 2011, via the
Cour's electronic transmission facilities pursuant to Fed. R Civ. P. 5(b)(3) and Local Rule 5.5
upon the following:

John C. Conti, Esquire
Richard J. Kabbert, Esquire
Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote
Two PPG Place, Suite 400
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
(Counsel for Defendant Jameson Health System, Inc.)

Mare Milie Jones, Esquire
Meyer, Daragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, P.L.L.C.
u.s. Steel Tower, Suite 4850

600 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, P A 15219
(Counselfor Defendants Lawrence County Children and Youth Services, Lawrence County and
Chrissy Montague)

By: Isl Quinn A. Johnson
Counsel for Plaintiffs