Tuell v. Deere Credit Services, Inc. et al

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 29 MOTION by Rural King Holding Co. to Stay Discovery. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 10/4/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (kp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
CLARENCE TUELL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-02715

DEERE CREDIT SERVICES, INC.,
d/b/a John Deere Financial;
and RURAL KING HOLDING CO.,
d/b/a Rural King Supply,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending is defendant Rural King Holding Co.’s (“Rural
King”) motion to stay discovery, filed August 17, 2017.
Rural King urges the court to enter “a protective
order and stay discovery” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(c).

Memorandum in Support of Motion to Stay

Discovery (“Mem. in Supp.”) ¶ 6.

The plaintiff, Clarence Tuell

(“Mr. Tuell”), opposes Rural King’s motion.

See Plaintiff’s

Response in Opposition (“Resp.”).
Rule 26(c)(1) provides the following:
A party or any person from whom discovery is sought
may move for a protective order . . . . The court
may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party
or person from . . . undue burden or expense,
including one or more of the following:
(A) forbidding the disclosure or discovery; [or]

(B) specifying terms, including time and . . . ,
for the disclosure or discovery . . . .
Under this Rule, a district court has the authority to stay
discovery pending the outcome of a dispositive motion.

See

Thigpen v. United States, 800 F.2d 393, 396-97 (4th Cir. 1986),
overruled on other grounds by Sheridan v. United States, 487
U.S. 392 (1988).
A number of factors guide the court’s analysis under
this Rule, none of which alone are dispositive.

Those factors

are
(1) the type of motion, (2) whether the motion is a
legal challenge or dispute over the sufficiency of
allegations, (3) the nature and complexity of the
action, (4) whether counterclaims and/or cross-claims
have been interposed, (5) whether other parties agree
to the stay, (6) the posture or stage of the
litigation, (6) the expected extent of discovery in
light of the number of parties and complexity of the
issues in the case, (7) and any other relevant
circumstances.
Citynet, LLC v. Frontier W. Va. Inc., No. 2:14-cv-15947, 2016 WL
6133844, at *1 (S.D. W. Va. Oct. 19, 2016) (Copenhaver, Jr., J.)
(internal quotations omitted) (citations omitted).
Rural King argues that “the discovery sought by
Plaintiff is not relevant to the opposition of the Motion to
Dismiss, as Plaintiff has already responded in opposition.”
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Stay Discovery (“Mem. in
Supp.”) at 3.

In addition, Rural King contends that “a stay of
2

discovery will not materially delay the disposition of this
matter” because “[t]here are no alleged ongoing obligations or
other circumstances which necessitate immediate discovery.”

Id.

Last, Rural King insists that “Plaintiff will not be prejudiced
by the stay.”

Id.

Mr. Tuell responds that dismissal is improper in cases
where the motion to dismiss tests the allegations in the
complaint.

Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (“Resp.”) at 3.

Further, he contends that a blanket stay of discovery is
inappropriate here because Deere Credit Services, Inc.,
(“Deere”) has not joined in Rural King’s motion, “[t]he case is
at its initial stages,” and initial discovery requests are
relatively less complex.

Id.

The court finds that a stay of all discovery is
inappropriate at this time.

Rural King’s co-defendant, Deere,

has not joined Rural King in requesting a stay; in fact, Deere
has filed a crossclaim against Rural King for indemnity and
contribution.

In addition, the action does not appear to be

fairly complex, and initial discovery requests should not prove
over-burdensome.

At any rate, the court anticipates that Rural

King’s motion to dismiss will be afforded the priority of a
dispositive motion, and Rural King will have the opportunity to

3

such matter in support thereof. (All motions
unsupported by memoranda will be denied without
prejudice pursuant to L.R. Civ. P. 7.1 (a)).
02/08/2016

Last day for Rule 26(f) meeting.

02/15/2016
Last day to file Report of Parties= Planning
file a more limited motion for stay of discovery at a later time
Meeting. See L.R. Civ. P. 16.1.
if the need arises.
02/22/2016
Scheduling conference at 4:30 p.m. at the Robert C.
Byrd United States Courthouse in Charleston, before
the undersigned, unless canceled. Lead counsel
For these reasons, the court ORDERS that Rural King’s
directed to appear.
motion to stay discovery be, and hereby is, denied.
02/29/2016
Entry of scheduling order.
03/08/2016

Last day to serve F.R. Civ. P 26(a)(1) disclosures.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this order

The Clerk is requested to transmit this Order and
to all counsel of record and any unrepresented parties.
Notice to all counsel of record and to any unrepresented
parties.

ENTER: October 4, 2017
DATED: January 5, 2016
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge

4