Rose et al v. Jividen et al

Filing 1055

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying the Wexford Defendants' 1038 EXPEDITED MOTION to Stay Case Pending Ruling on Motions to Dismiss and the PrimeCare Defendants' 1046 MOTION to Stay Discovery Pending Decision on Motions to Dismiss for lack of good cause shown. Signed by Chief Judge Frank W. Volk on 9/24/2024. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (btm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
BRYAN STAFFORD, in his capacity
as Executor of the Estate of
THOMAS FLEENOR, JR.,
JOHN CRABTREE,
STEVEN MARTIN,
GARY TOLER,
ELGIE ADKINS,
and SABRINA EAGLE,
on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-00405

PRIMECARE MEDICAL, INC.,
PRIMECARE MEDICAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC.
THOMAS WEBER,
BRETT BAVINGTON,
TODD HESKINS,
KRISTA VALLANDINGHAM,
MELISSA JEFFERY,
BRANDY EASTRIDGE,
HELEN PERKINS,
JESSICA MILLER,
BRANDY EASTRIDGE,
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
MARY STONE,
DANIEL CONN,
ELAINE GEDMAN,
JOHN FROELICH,
HUMAYAN RASHID, M.D.,
ANGELA NICHOLSON, MSN, APRN, FNP-C,
AMBER DUNCAN,
LISA MULLENS, LPN,
CASSEY BOLEN,
JOHN PENNINGTON, MA, LPC, NCC, NCSC,
KENNADI SMITH, LPN,

BRITTANI MARSHALL, RN,
ASHLEY STROUP, LPN,
DONNA DEAN-CHRIVIA,
JOHN AND JANE DOE
PRIMECARE AND WEXFORD EMPLOYEES,
and TAYLOR BROOKS,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending are Defendants Taylor Brooks, Daniel Conn, John Froelich, Elaine
Gedman, Melissa Jeffery, Brittani Marshall, Jessica Miller, Helen Perkins, Humayan Rashid,
Kennadi Smith, Mary Stone, Ashley Stroup, and Wexford Health Sources, Inc.’s (hereinafter, the
“Wexford Defendants”) Expedited Motion to Stay Case Pending Ruling on Motions to Dismiss
[Doc. 1038], filed September 18, 2024, and Defendants PrimeCare Medical, Inc., PrimeCare
Medical of West Virginia, Inc., Tom Weber, Todd Haskins, Brent Bavington, Krista
Vallandingham, Angela Nicholson, Brandy Eastridge, John Pennington, Amber Duncan, Casey
Bolen, and Lisa Mullens’s (hereinafter, the “PrimeCare Defendants”) Motion to Stay Discovery
Pending Decision on Motions to Dismiss [Doc. 1046], filed September 23, 2024.
Our Court of Appeals has held that district courts maintain “substantial discretion
in managing discovery.” Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha of Va., Inc., 43 F.3d 922,
929 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing Erdmann v. Preferred Rsch., Inc., 852 F.2d 788, 792 (4th Cir. 1988)
(“The scope and conduct of discovery, however, are within the sound discretion of the district
court.”); Larouche v. Nat’l Broad. Co., Inc., 780 F.2d 1134, 1139 (4th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479
U.S. 818 (1986)). This includes the discretion to stay discovery in advance of deciding a pending
dispositive motion upon a showing of good cause. See Bragg v. United States, No. 2:10-0683,
2010 WL 3835080, at *1 (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 29, 2010) (citing 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.
2

392 (1988)). “Such a stay is an eminently logical means to prevent wasting the time and effort of
all concerned, and to make the most efficient use of judicial resources.” Blankenship v. Trump,
No. 2:19-CV-00549, 2020 WL 748874, at *2 (S.D. W. Va. Feb. 13, 2020) (internal quotation
marks omitted) (citing United States v. Daily Gazette Co., No. CIV.A. 2:07-0329, 2007 WL
7575700, at *2 (S.D. W. Va. Oct. 18, 2007)). This determination is “necessarily fact-specific and
depends on the particular circumstances and posture of each case.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).
Both the Wexford and PrimeCare Defendants contend good cause exists to stay this
case pending resolution of the pending and forthcoming motions to dismiss because (1) “the
Motions to Dismiss that have been filed or will be filed present a legal challenge to Plaintiffs’
claims,” (2) “The Plaintiffs’ Complaint has been dismissed once before” and “the operative
Complaint is fatal in the same respect,” and (3) “[p]articipating in discovery while Motions to
Dismiss are pending or will be forthcoming will subject these Defendants to expend needless time,
effort, and expense, on a case that it has already been litigated for over two years.” [Doc. 1039 at
5; see also Doc. 1047 at 3, 6]. Inasmuch as the Court expects to rule promptly on any pending
dispositive motions and to the extent the Defendants rely on the anticipated filing of such motions
as the basis for a stay of discovery, the Court finds a stay is unjustified. Furthermore, although
Defendants Brooks, Conn, Froelich, Gedman, Jeffery, Marshall, Miller, Perkins, Rashid, Smith,
Stone, and Stroup were not named defendants in this action until Plaintiffs’ July 30, 2024, filing
of the Third Amended Complaint, they each share counsel with Wexford Health Sources, Inc.,
which has been a defendant since 2022 and has participated in almost two years’ worth of
discovery. Likewise, Defendants PrimeCare Medical, Inc, Weber, Haskins, Bavington,
Vallandingham, Nicholson, Eastridge, Pennington, Duncan, Bolen, and Mullens share counsel

3

with PrimeCare Medical of West Virginia, Inc., a defendant in this action since its inception.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES both Motions [Docs. 1038, 1046] for lack of good cause shown.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this written opinion and order to all
counsel of record and to any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

4

September 24, 2024