Chafin v. Caudill et al

Filing 115

ORDER denying 31 MOTION by Steve Caudill, Jason Hutson, Joseph Wood for Protective Order and to Stay Discovery; 9 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 3/7/2025. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (kew) (Modified on 3/7/2025 to remove link to #85 motion) (ts)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER CHAFIN,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-00135

STEVE CAUDILL, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants Steve Caudill, Jason Hutson, and Joseph Wood’s
(“Defendants”) Motion for Protective Order and to Stay Discovery. (ECF No. 31.) Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a “court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a
party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,”
through limiting discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
“The determination by a district judge in granting or denying a motion to stay proceedings
calls for an exercise of judgment to balance the various factors relevant to the expeditious and
comprehensive disposition of the causes of action on the court's docket.” United States v. Georgia
Pac. Corp., 562 F.2d 294, 296 (4th Cir. 1977). In making this determination, district courts have
broad discretion. Hickey v. Baxter, 833 F.2d 1005, at *1 (4th Cir. 1987) (unpublished opinion).
“The party seeking a stay must justify it by clear and convincing circumstances outweighing
potential harm to the party against whom it is operative.” Williford v. Armstrong World Indus.,
Inc., 715 F.2d 124, 127 (4th Cir. 1983). To determine whether the moving part has met this

burden, the court must consider three factors: “(1) the interests of judicial economy; (2) hardship
and equity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) potential prejudice to the nonmoving party.” Clark v. Appalachian Power Co., 2025 WL 72165 at *2 (Jan. 10, 2025) (citations
omitted).
Defendants argue that discovery should be stayed because “there are threshold immunity
questions for the Court to resolve,” and “there is a significant chance this Court will agree that
these Defendants are entitled to such immunity.” (ECF No. 32 at 5.) Furthermore, aside from
broadly asserting that the “criteria weigh in favor of granting these Defendants a stay and
protective order,” Defendants have offered limited arguments for the three factors. (Id. at 3.)
The first factor, judicial economy, weighs only slightly in Plaintiff’s favor, as the Court prefers to
stick to previously established schedules. The second factor, hardship and equity to the moving
party, weighs in Plaintiff’s favor. Defendants did not offer any arguments as to this factor, and
Plaintiff has correctly asserted that even if Defendants are dismissed, WVDCR would still have to
produce discovery materials for the remaining parties. The final factor, potential prejudice to the
non-moving party, weighs slightly in Plaintiff’s favor because delays in discovery could result in
degrading memories and documents and witnesses becoming more difficult to access. Because
these factors slightly weigh in Plaintiff’s favor, and because this Court has broad discretion in
granting or denying stays, Defendants’ motion, (ECF No. 31), is DENIED.
Also before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint.

(ECF No. 9.)

Because the Complaint has been amended, (ECF No. 78), and because Defendants have filed a
Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 85), Defendants’ original Motion to Dismiss
Complaint, (ECF No. 9), is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:

March 7, 2025