Barnes v. Harris et al
Filing
49
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDERgranting 33 Intervener FDICs Motion to Stay Discovery ; granting 34 Individual Defendants Motion to Stay and Joinder in the IntervenerFDIC-Receivers Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 4/18/13. (ss)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
J. CANUTE BARNES, W. KING BARNES,
and ROBERT V. JONES, derivatively on
behalf of all similarly situated shareholders of
BARNES BANCORPORATION,
Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
STAY
vs.
CURTIS H. HARRIS, NED H. GILES,
DAVID N. BARNES, ROBERT L.
THURGOOD, JERRY W. STEVENSON,
MICHAEL D. PAVICH, GARY M.
WRIGHT, DOUGLAS STANGER, and
BARNES BANCORPORATION, a nominal
defendant,
Case No. 2:12-CV-1010 TS
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Intervener Federal Deposit Insurance Company’s
(“FDIC”) Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Dispositive Motions and Defendants
Curtis H. Harris, Ned H . Giles, David N. Barnes, Robert L. Thurgood, Jerry W. Stevenson,
Michael D. Pavich, Gary M. Wright, and Douglas Stanger’s (hereinafter “Individual
Defendants”) Motion to Stay and Joinder in the Intervener FDIC-Receiver’s Motion to Stay
1
Discovery Pending Resolution of Dispositive Motions. For the reasons discussed below, the
Court will grant both Motions.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs brought this action as a shareholder derivative suit against certain officers and
members of the board of directors of Barnes Bancorporation, a registered bank holding company
whose primary asset is its subsidiary, Barnes Banking Company (“the Bank”). On January, 15,
2010, the Bank was closed by the Utah Department of Financial Institutions and the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation was appointed as receiver (“FDIC-Receiver”) for the Bank.
Plaintiffs originally filed their complaint on January 12, 2012, in Utah state court. On
April 3, 2012, the FDIC filed a motion to intervene as a Plaintiff, and the state court stayed
discovery in this case while it considered the motion. On October 29, 2012, the state court
granted the FDIC’s motion to intervene, and on October 30, 2012, the FDIC removed the case to
this Court.
On November 6, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which this Court denied on
January 15, 2013. Soon thereafter, on January 25, Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the FDIC.
At this point, although it had been over a year since the filing of the initial Complaint, the parties
had not yet conducted significant discovery. On February 6, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a report on
their Rule 26(f) attorneys’ conference and an accompanying schedule with proposed discovery
deadlines. However, Plaintiffs acknowledged that neither Defendants’ counsel nor Intervener’s
counsel agreed to the proposed schedule.1 Indeed, Defendants’ counsel did not attend the
1
Docket No. 26, at 2.
2
meeting, as they had previously objected to holding a scheduling conference until the potentially
dispositive motion to dismiss had been decided.2 On February 22, Defendants filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings, and on February 25 the FDIC filed its motion to dismiss. All three
potentially dispositive motions are set for oral argument on May 14.
II. DISCUSSION
Individual Defendants and the FDIC argue that discovery should be stayed in this case
until the three outstanding dispositive motions have been resolved. They argue that Plaintiffs are
requesting extensive amounts of discovery, that the requested discovery will be expensive to
produce, and that the parties will need the Court’s assistance in resolving numerous disputes that
will arise out of Plaintiff’s pending discovery requests. As much or all of this discovery may
become unnecessary when the Court makes its decision on the pending dispositive motions,
Individual Defendants and the FDIC argue that it is in the best interest of the parties and the
Court to stay discovery.
Plaintiffs do not object to a temporary stay on discovery. However, in their memorandum
in opposition, Plaintiffs request that the Court order that written responses to pending discovery
requests be provided within fourteen days of the Court’s order on the pending dispositive
motions, and that documents be produced within twenty-eight days of that order. Additionally,
Plaintiffs request that the Court find that the Individual Defendants have waived all objections to
the pending discovery.
2
Docket No. 27, at 2.
3
As Plaintiffs do not object, and as discovery in this case could prove time consuming and
expensive for both the parties and the Court, the Court will grant the Motions to Stay. The Court
does not find it appropriate to set discovery deadlines or rule on other discovery issues at this
time.
III. CONCLUSION
It is therefore
ORDERED that Intervener FDIC’s Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of
Dispositive Motions (Docket No. 33) is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that Individual Defendants’ Motion to Stay and Joinder in the Intervener
FDIC-Receiver’s Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Dispositive Motions (Docket
No. 34) is GRANTED. Discovery in this matter is hereby stayed pending resolution of the
dispositive motions currently before the Court.
DATED April 18, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District 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?