Hope v. Board of Directors of Kanawha Public Service District et al
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting the 19 JOINT MOTION for Stay of 12 Order and Notice Deadlines and Discovery; directing that this civil action is stayed pending ruling on the motion. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 12/5/2012. (cc: attys) (tmh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
SAM M. HOPE, II,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-6559
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF KANAWHA
PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT and
KANAWHA PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT,
a political subdivision, and
DAVID HOWELL, C.P.A., individually
and in his capacity as Chairman
of the Kanawha Public Service District,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending is the parties’ joint motion for a stay of
order and notice deadlines and discovery in advance of a ruling
on the defendants’ motions to dismiss, filed December 4, 2012.
This suit arises from plaintiff Sam Hope’s September
13, 2012 termination from his employment with the Kanawha Public
Service District (“KPSC”).
He asserts that his discharge was in
retaliation for complaints he made to the West Virginia Ethics
Commission and to the Public Service Commission of West
Virginia.
His complaint alleges violation of the West Virginia
whistle blower statute, discharge in contravention of public
policy, constitutional torts, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress.
On October 12, 2012, defendant David Howell, the
chairman of the KPSC Board of Directors, filed a motion to
dismiss, and on October 19, the remaining defendants filed a
similar motion.
The motions collectively asserts that 1) Hope
has not met the pleading standards, 2) Howell is immune from
personal liability for his actions as a board member and is
otherwise entitled to qualified immunity, 3) allegations of
public policy violations are preempted by the West Virginia
whistle blower statute, and 4) the KPSD Board is immune from
liability to the extent that Hope’s allegations are personally
directed against board members in their individual capacities.
The parties contend that because most of the issues before the
court are legal issues which should be dispositive, proceeding
with discovery now would be a waste of judicial resources.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides that
[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a
party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or
undue burden or expense.”
The Rule vests the court with
discretion to stay discovery in advance of deciding a pending
dispositive motion.
See Thigpen v. United States, 800 F.2d 393,
396-97 (4th Cir. 1986) (“Nor did the court err by granting the
government’s motion under [Rule] 26(c) to stay discovery pending
2
disposition of the 12(b)(1) motion.”), overruled on other
grounds by Sheridan v. United States, 487 U.S. 392 (1988).
In the interest of efficiency and in light of the
parties’ unanimous agreement, the court finds good cause to
permit the requested stay.
The court, accordingly, ORDERS as
follows:
1.
That the joint motion for a stay pending resolution of
the motion to dismiss be, and it hereby is, granted;
and
2.
That this civil action be, and it hereby is, stayed
pending a ruling on the motion.
The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this
written opinion and order to all counsel of record.
ENTER: December 5, 2012
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge
3
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?