Moseley v. Lynch
2:16-cv-00153
S.D. Ga.May 1, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Cary G. Moseley, Jr. filed suit and an Amended Complaint alleging claims against the U.S. Attorney General; the Defendant moved to dismiss on April 10, 2017.
- Defendant also moved to stay all discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss; the Court initially granted a stay but vacated that order to consider Plaintiff’s response.
- Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel a nonparty (Tracey Jermon) to produce unspecified paperwork related to his termination.
- The Magistrate Judge reviewed the parties’ filings and the pending motion to dismiss and noted Defendant’s dismissal challenges appeared meritorious and not frivolous.
- The Court found good cause to stay discovery to avoid undue expense and potentially unnecessary discovery if the motion to dismiss narrows or disposes of claims, and dismissed Plaintiff’s motion to compel as moot and, alternatively, for failure to serve the nonparty with proper discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery should be stayed pending resolution of Defendant's motion to dismiss | Stay is improper; Plaintiff claimed discovery needed to preserve evidence and to respond to motion | Stay appropriate to avoid undue cost and because motion to dismiss raises meritorious challenges that may eliminate or narrow discovery needs | Court granted stay of all discovery until ruling on motion to dismiss; parties may not serve or must not respond to discovery during stay |
| Whether the Court should compel nonparty Tracey Jermon to produce documents now | Plaintiff asked the Court to order Jermon to produce unspecified paperwork relevant to his termination and asserted need to preserve evidence | Defendant argued discovery should be stayed and Plaintiff had not served formal discovery requests or followed procedural rules for third-party discovery | Motion to compel dismissed as moot given stay; alternatively denied for failure to serve proper discovery and for not following Rule 26 procedures; Plaintiff told to serve requests and follow Rules 30/31/45 and local meet-and-confer if stay is lifted |
Key Cases Cited
- Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1997) (district courts may stay discovery to avoid unnecessary expense when a dismissal motion could eliminate claims)
- Flury v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 427 F.3d 939 (11th Cir. 2005) (district courts have broad discretion to sanction spoliation to prevent unfair prejudice)
- Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (courts balance harm of delaying discovery against potential that dismissal will eliminate need for discovery)
- Moore v. Potter, [citation="141 F. App'x 803"] (11th Cir. 2005) (no need for discovery before ruling on a dispositive motion to dismiss in certain circumstances)