Dorrah v. United States, 282 F.R.D. 442

Plaintiff alleges a trip-and-fall at an air show sponsored by the 185th Air Refueling Wing in Sioux City on Aug. 1, 2009, seeking damages from the defendant for negligence.
Defendant moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing RUA immunity under Iowa law barred liability and that plaintiff pled only negligence, not willful/malicious conduct.
Judge O’Brien previously held limited discovery is appropriate to determine whether the air show was commercially motivated, and permitted plaintiff to pursue discovery related to defendant’s economic benefits from the air show.
Extensive discovery disputes followed; plaintiff delayed responses, defendant sought leave to conduct discovery, and a telephonic hearing occurred on July 25, 2012.
The court now grants in part and denies in part defendant’s motion for leave to conduct limited discovery, with specific discovery obligations and a deposition denial.
Plaintiff must answer defendant’s 14 interrogatories and respond to document requests 2 and 3 by October 19, 2012; deposition of plaintiff is denied at this stage; no further discovery requests may be served absent a scheduling order or court leave.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant may conduct limited discovery on the air show’s commercial motivation under Rule 26(d)(1).	Plaintiff argues defendant had no authorization to seek discovery.	Defendant contends it should be allowed to conduct limited discovery on the economic relationship relevant to the RUA.	Granted in part; limited discovery allowed with specified interrogatories and document requests.
What scope of discovery is permissible at this stage (documents and interrogatories vs. deposition).	Discovery should be limited or denied; burdensome.	Discovery requests are relevant and permissible to determine RUA applicability.	Document requests 2 and 3 allowed; document request 1 and deposition denied at this stage.
Whether plaintiff must respond to defendant’s discovery requests despite prior authorization for plaintiff-only discovery.	Plaintiff objects to defendant’s discovery requests.	Defendant seeks timely responses to its discovery requests.	Plaintiff must respond to the fourteen interrogatories and document requests 2 and 3 by Oct. 19, 2012.
Whether defendant may depose plaintiff at this stage.	Deposition is necessary for defense.	Deposition warranted to obtain information.	Deposition denied at this time.

Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724 (8th Cir. 1990) (court may consider matters outside the pleadings in certain dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction)