Jones v. Richland County

Filing 42

ORDER denying 40 Motion for Reconsideration. This matter remains stayed pending the Fourth Circuit's resolution of Plaintiff's interlocutory appeal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 2/27/2017.(gnan )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Justine Jones,
Plaintiff,
v.
Richland County,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 3:16-466-MBS-KDW
ORDER

The court has considered Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 40] of the
court’s earlier order staying this matter while Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal is pending in the
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [ECF No. 37]. Plaintiff argues the stay of proceedings
works a “manifest injustice,” impacts “timely discovery,” and “prejudice[s] both parties” as to
timely discovery. ECF No. 40 at 2-3. Plaintiff submits continued discovery “is manifestly
necessary to best preserve the evidence” in this matter. Id. at 3 (providing no detail of any
particular discovery in need of immediate preservation).
Defendant, which sought the stay, disagrees with Plaintiff, arguing that no manifest
injustice results from staying discovery. Rather, Defendant argues it is entitled to know what
claims are at issue prior to resuming discovery and notes that facts concerning the cause of action
on interlocutory appeal comprise nearly half of the factual-background portion of Plaintiff’s
Complaint. ECF No. 41 at 2, 3 & n.3. Defendant also submits that Plaintiff’s reliance on Rule
59(e) for her Motion was improper because the order being reconsidered was not one for final
judgment. Id. at 2. Technically, Defendant is correct. See, e.g., Ball v. USAA Life Ins. Co., No.
2:16-CV-00041-DCN, 2017 WL 569994, at *1 (D.S.C. Feb. 13, 2017) (noting motions to
reconsider interlocutory orders are not subject to Rule 59(e)’s “strict standards,” but noting

courts nonetheless may look to Rule 59 jurisprudence when considering motions to reconsider
more properly brought pursuant to Rule 54(b)).
Having considered the parties’ arguments, the court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration, ECF No. 40. Plaintiff has not established any manifest injustice in the court’s
granting Defendant’s motion to stay this matter while the Fourth Circuit considers an
interlocutory appeal that Plaintiff herself filed, nor has Plaintiff otherwise convinced the court
that the stay should not remain in place. This matter remains stayed pending the Fourth Circuit’s
resolution of Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 27, 2017
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge

2