Diaz v. Gelber, 3:24-cv-00856

Anthony Diaz, a federal inmate, filed a legal malpractice suit against Darren Gelber and others.
Defendants filed pending motions to dismiss, raising substantial legal questions about Diaz’s claims.
The magistrate previously stayed discovery, finding it prudent to await the outcome of the dismissal motions.
Diaz filed a motion to reconsider, seeking to compel discovery before the court’s ruling on the motions to dismiss.
The court addressed whether reconsideration was warranted based on any intervening change in law, new evidence, or manifest error.
The court reaffirmed its discretion to defer discovery pending resolution of potentially dispositive motions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reconsider stay of discovery	Discovery should proceed before dismissal decision	Discovery should be stayed until dismissal motions are resolved	Stay remains; discovery deferred
Abuse of discretion in discovery ruling	Court abused discretion in deferring discovery	Court acted within broad discretion over discovery	Court has wide discretion, no abuse
Standard for reconsideration	Satisfied standard due to necessity for discovery	No new evidence, law, or manifest injustice	Standard not met; no reconsideration
Impact of dispositive motions on discovery	Pending motions do not justify delay	Pending motions raise substantial grounds	Dispositive motions justify discovery stay

Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906 (3d Cir. 1985) (clarifies that reconsideration is for correcting clear errors or new evidence, not disagreement)
Dodge v. Susquehanna Univ., 796 F. Supp. 829 (M.D. Pa. 1992) (sets narrow grounds for reconsideration)
Howard Hess Dental Labs. Inc. v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., 602 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2010) (outlines reconsideration standards)
Wisniewski v. Johns-Manville Corp., 812 F.2d 81 (3d Cir. 1987) (reinforces broad judicial discretion over discovery timing)