West v. Byars et al

Filing 103

ORDER granting 72 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; granting 77 Motion to Compel; denying 83 Motion to Stay; granting 93 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Defendants have until < u> May 6, 2014 to respond to the discovery requests that Plaintiff has previously served in this matter. The dispositive motion deadline is extended to June 16, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 2/6/2014.(mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

)
)
)
)
)
v.
)
)
Director William R. Byars, Jr.; Warden
Cecilia Reynolds; Associate Warden Jerry )
)
Washington; Major Darren Seward;
Captain Daniel Dubose; Lieutenant Claude )
)
Powell; Sergeant Kristopher Sweet;
)
Corporal Jeremy Tarlton; Officer
Lawrence Taylor; Nurse Luanne Mungo; in )
)
their individual and official capacity as
corrections employees of the State of South )
)
Carolina, Kershaw State Prison,
)
)
Defendants.
Christopher West,

C/A No.

5:13-cv-00981-DCN-KDW

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action alleging violations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court on the
parties’ pending discovery motions. On October 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, ECF No. 72, and on November 25, 2013, Plaintiff
filed a Motion to Compel, ECF No. 77. On November 26, 2013, while Plaintiff’s discovery
motions were pending, Defendants filed a Motion to Extend the Time to File Dispositive
Motions, ECF No. 78.1 In response to these pending motions, on December 2, 2013, the
court stayed the dispositive motion deadline and directed Defendants’ counsel to advise the
court, by December 9, 2013, regarding the status of Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s
outstanding discovery requests. ECF No. 79. On December 6, 2013, Defendants filed their
Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 82. On this same date, Defendants also filed a
Motion to Stay Discovery. ECF No. 83. On December 18, 2013, Defendants’ Motion for

1

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order entered in this case, dispositive motions were due by
December 2, 2013. ECF No. 45.

Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions,  ECF No. 78 , was denied as moot. ECF No.
90. On December 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a second Motion for Extension of Time to
Complete Discovery, ECF No. 93. Defendants have filed Responses in Opposition to each of
Plaintiff’s Motions. See ECF Nos. 74, 89, 96, 100. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s
Motion to Stay.
Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), and
Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial
matters in prisoner petitions filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery, ECF No. 83
Defendants argue that a stay of discovery should be granted until the court has
resolved “the threshold issue of qualified immunity.” ECF No. 83 at 5. Defendants further
argue that they should not be “subject to [Plaintiff’s] expensive, time-consuming, and
vexatious” discovery requests. Id. Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s discovery requests are
irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and further argue that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced if
discovery is stayed in this matter. Id. Defendants cite to Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800,
and argue that discovery should not be allowed in this case until the issue of qualified
immunity is resolved. ECF No. 83 at 3. Defendants also cite to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(c), contending that the court has the “inherent power to stay discovery” when
the proposed discovery request “is not likely to produce facts” to defeat summary judgment.
Id.
Rule 26(b)(2)(C) permits the court to limit the “frequency or extent of discovery
otherwise allowed” for several reasons, including its determination that “discovery sought is
unreasonably cumulative,” “the discovery sought . . . can be obtained from some other source
that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive” or the “burden or expense of the
proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i), (iii).
2 

In this case, the court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1-1, Defendants’
summary judgment motion, ECF No. 82, and Plaintiff’s discovery requests, attached as an
exhibit to Defendants’ Motion to Stay, ECF Nos. 83-1 to 83-9. The court finds that the issue
of qualified immunity cannot be determined on the record presently before the court due to
outstanding questions of fact. The court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to conduct discovery
in this matter, and therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery, ECF No. 83, is denied.
Plaintiff’s Motions for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, ECF Nos. 72, 93;
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, ECF No. 77

Plaintiff asks the court to issue an order compelling Defendants to respond to
discovery requests that he has served on Defendants’ attorney. ECF No. 77. Defendants
oppose Plaintiff’s motion arguing that Plaintiff’s discovery requests were untimely because
they were not served in time for Defendants to respond before the court’s October 21, 2013
discovery deadline. ECF No. 89 at 33. Defendants also oppose Plaintiff’s motion arguing
that Plaintiff’s motion does not comply with the Local Rules of the District of South
Carolina. ECF No. 89 at 3-4. Defendants finally argue that Plaintiff’s motion should be
denied for the same reasons articulated in its Motion to Stay. ECF No. 89 at 4-5.
Addressing Defendants concerns regarding the timeliness of Plaintiff’s discovery
requests, the court finds that Plaintiff moved to extend discovery prior to the expiration of the
discovery deadline in this matter.2 See ECF No. 72. As the court has found supra that
Plaintiff is entitled to discovery in this matter, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, ECF No. 77,
and Plaintiff’s motions to extend the time complete discovery, ECF Nos. 72, 93, are granted.
Defendants shall have until May 6, 2014 to respond to the discovery requests that Plaintiff

2

Discovery in this matter was due by October 21, 2013. Plaintiff’s motion was mailed on
October 17, 2013. See ECF No. 72-1.
3 

has previously served in this matter. The dispositive motion deadline is extended to June 16,
2014.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s Motions for Extension of Time to
Complete Discovery, ECF No. 72, 93, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, ECF No. 77, are
GRANTED. Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery, ECF No. 83, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 6, 2014
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge

4