West v. Byars et al

Filing 72

ORDER granting 38 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; denying 52 Motion to Stay; granting 62 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. The discovery deadline is extended until May 6, 2014 and Defendants are instructed 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

Christopher Gearl West, aka,
Christopher West

v.
Director William R. Byars, Jr.; Warden
Cecilia Reynolds; Associate Warden Jerry
Washington; Major Darren Seaward;
Captain Daniel Dubose; Sergeant Baker;
Officer Chris Hunt; Officer Robert
Bigham; Inst. Investigator Sylvesta
Robinson; Nurse Luanne Mungo; Robert
Bryan; in their individual and official
capacity as corrections employees of the
State of South Carolina,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.

5:13-cv-1849-DCN-KDW

ORDER

Defendants.
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. 38. On November 26, 2013, while
Plaintiff’s discovery motion was pending, Defendants filed a Motion to Extend the Time to
File Dispositive Motions, ECF No. 47.1 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. 48. On December 6, 2013, Defendants
filed their Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 51. On this same date, Defendants also
filed a Motion to Stay Discovery. ECF No. 52. On December 18, 2013, Defendants’ Motion

1

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order entered in this case, dispositive motions were due by
December 2, 2013. ECF No. 29.

for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions,  ECF No. 47 , was denied as moot. ECF
No. 59. On December 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a second Motion for Extension of Time to
Complete Discovery, ECF No. 62. Defendants have filed Responses in Opposition to each of
Plaintiff’s Motions. See ECF Nos. 44, 65. 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. 52
Defendants argue that a stay of discovery should be granted until the court has
resolved “the threshold issue of qualified immunity.” ECF No. 52 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 2-3. 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. at 3.
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, Defendants’
summary judgment motion, ECF No. 51, and Plaintiff’s discovery requests, attached as an
exhibit to Defendants’ Motion to Stay, ECF Nos. 52-1 to 52-8. 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. 52, is denied.
Plaintiff’s Motions for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, ECF Nos. 38, 62
Plaintiff asks this court to modify the scheduling order in this action by at least 30
days to allow Plaintiff to complete discovery in this matter.2 ECF Nos. 38, 62. Defendants
oppose this motion arguing that Plaintiff case is not an “unusual case worthy” of an extension
and that Plaintiff’s requested extension would “substantially affect other deadlines set forth
in the Court’s Scheduling Order.” ECF No. 65 at 2. As the court has found supra that
Plaintiff is entitled to discovery in this matter, and because Plaintiff has not had an
opportunity to conduct discovery as Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Discovery prior to
answering any of Plaintiff’s discovery requests, the court grants Plaintiff’s motions to extend
the time complete discovery, ECF Nos. 38, 62. The discovery deadline is extended until
May 6, 2014 and Defendants are instructed to respond to the discovery requests that Plaintiff
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. 38, 62, are GRANTED.

Defendants’ Motion to Stay

Discovery, ECF No. 52, is DENIED.

2

Discovery in this matter was due by October 21, 2013. ECF No. 29. Plaintiff’s Motion for
Extension of Time To Complete Discovery was mailed on October 17, 2013. ECF No. 38-1.
3 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 6, 2014
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge

4