Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Sparks et al
Filing
38
MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 19 Motion for Initial Scheduling Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett on 8/12/2020. (nl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
FARM BUREAU PROPERTY &
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, an
Iowa corporation,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00044-JNP-JCB
DAVID SPARKS, an individual; et al.,
District Judge Jill N. Parrish
v.
Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett
District Judge Jill N. Parrish referred this case to Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 1 Before the court is Plaintiff Farm Bureau Property &
Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Farm Bureau”) Motion for Initial Scheduling Conference. 2
On April 27, 2020, the court entered an Order to Propose Schedule requiring the parties
to undertake certain actions relative to scheduling. 3 Pursuant to Paragraph 2.c. of that order, if
the parties failed to agree on an Attorney Planning Meeting Report or on a stipulated Motion for
Initial Scheduling Conference, Farm Bureau was required to file a Motion for Initial Scheduling
Conference. 4
1
ECF No. 31.
2
ECF No. 19.
3
ECF No. 3.
4
Id. at ¶ 2.c.
On June 15, 2020, Defendants David Sparks; Diesel Power Gear, LLC;
DieselSellerz.com, LLC; and Diesel Dave Entertainment, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) filed
a motion to dismiss.5
On June 22, 2020, after the parties were apparently unable to agree on an Attorney
Planning Meeting Report or on a stipulated Motion for Initial Scheduling Conference, Farm
Bureau filed the motion before the court, consistent with the requirements of the Order to
Propose Schedule. Farm Bureau asks the court to grant its motion and enter its proposed
scheduling order.
Defendants oppose Farm Bureau’s motion. Defendants contend that their motion to
dismiss, which seeks dismissal of this action in its entirety, should be decided prior to entry of a
scheduling order and the commencement of discovery.
The court acknowledges that Farm Bureau properly complied with the Order to Propose
Schedule; however, the court agrees with Defendants’ argument. Because Defendants’ motion to
dismiss could potentially dispose of this action, the court concludes that scheduling and the
commencement of discovery at this point are premature. That conclusion is well within the
court’s broad discretion to control the timing and sequence of discovery “for the parties’ and
witnesses’ convenience and in the interests of justice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(3); see also Sec. &
Exch. Comm’n v. Merrill Scott & Assocs., Ltd., 600 F.3d 1262, 1271 (10th Cir. 2010) (“The
district court has broad discretion over the control of discovery . . . .”) (quotations and citations
omitted); Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Johnson Health Tech N. Am., Inc., No. 1:10-CV-00209,
5
ECF No. 18.
2
2011 WL 13136539, at *1 (D. Utah Mar. 1, 2011) (“[U]nder certain circumstances the court may
utilize its discretion to alter the timing, sequence, and volume of discovery.”) (quotations,
citation, and footnote omitted). Furthermore, it is consistent with other decisions from this court
when faced with similar circumstances. See, e.g., Craft Smith, LLC v. EC Design, LLC, No.
2:16-CV-01235-DB-PMW, 2018 WL 1725465, at *1 (D. Utah Apr. 6, 2018) (staying all
discovery in the action pending resolution of a motion to dismiss); Rupp v. Transcon. Ins. Co.,
No. 2:07-CV-333-TC-PMW, 2008 WL 3193069, at *1-2 (D. Utah Aug. 6, 2008) (denying motion
for scheduling conference and concluding that discovery would be premature while dispositive
motions were pending).
For those reasons, Farm Bureau’s Motion for Initial Scheduling Conference 6 is DENIED.
Additionally, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.
Farm Bureau must propose a schedule to Defendants in the form of a draft
Attorney Planning Meeting Report within 14 days after the court issues its ruling
on Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
2.
Within 7 days after receipt of the draft Attorney Planning Meeting Report, the
parties shall meet and confer and do one of the following:
a.
File a jointly signed Attorney Planning Meeting Report and also e-mail a
stipulated Proposed Scheduling Order in word processing format to
utdecf_bennett@utd.uscourts.gov; or
6
ECF No. 19.
3
b.
If the parties cannot agree on a Proposed Scheduling Order, Farm Bureau
must file a jointly signed Attorney Planning Meeting Report detailing the
nature of the parties’ disputes and must also file a stipulated Motion for
Initial Scheduling Conference; or
c.
If the parties fail to agree on an Attorney Planning Meeting Report or on a
stipulated Motion for Initial Scheduling Conference, Farm Bureau must file
a Motion for Initial Scheduling Conference, which must include a
statement of Farm Bureau’s position as to the schedule. Any response to
such a motion must be filed within 7 days.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED August 12, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
JARED C. BENNETT
United States Magistrate Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?