Wickwire v. Am. Pub. Univ. Sys.
Wickwire v. Am. Pub. Univ. Sys.
2021 WL 6882390 (N.D. W. Va. 2021)
September 7, 2021
Trumble, Robert W., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The Court granted the Motion for Protective Order and stayed discovery until resolution of the Motion to Dismiss. The Court also granted the Order on September 3, 2021, allowing Plaintiff to serve each Defendant with subpoenas requesting documents and ESI.
Additional Decisions
JOEL DANIEL WICKWIRE, Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM/AMERICAN MILITARY UNIVERSITY, DR. KATHERINE BRANNUM, DR. LORI WOESTE, DR. JOHN DOLAN, DR. MELISSA SCHNYDER, DR. VERNON SMITH, DR. NICOLE DRUMHILLER, DR. MARK RICCARDI, DR. JENNIFER DOUGLAS, DR. MELISSA LAYNE, DR. CARLSON-RAINER, MS. CAROLINE SIMPSON and MS. MICHELLE NEWMAN, Defendants
v.
AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM/AMERICAN MILITARY UNIVERSITY, DR. KATHERINE BRANNUM, DR. LORI WOESTE, DR. JOHN DOLAN, DR. MELISSA SCHNYDER, DR. VERNON SMITH, DR. NICOLE DRUMHILLER, DR. MARK RICCARDI, DR. JENNIFER DOUGLAS, DR. MELISSA LAYNE, DR. CARLSON-RAINER, MS. CAROLINE SIMPSON and MS. MICHELLE NEWMAN, Defendants
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:21-CV-39
United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
Filed September 07, 2021
Trumble, Robert W., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
*1 On August 31, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion for Protective Order [ECF No. 78] seeking a stay of discovery until resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 29].[1] As of this date, Plaintiff has not filed a Response. For the reasons more fully explained herein, the Motion shall be GRANTED.
“A protective order under Rule 26(c) to stay discovery pending determination of a dispositive motion is an appropriate exercise of the court's discretion.” Tilley v. United States, 270 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (M.D.N.C. 2003); see Hamstead v. Walker, No. 3:18-CV-79 (N.D.W. Va. July 18, 2018) (staying discovery pending resolution of motions to dismiss). 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, 2020 WL 748874, at *2 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 13, 2020). “As with all protective orders, the moving party must show good cause for the court to issue the order.” Marden's Ark Corp. v. Bodenhamer, 2021 WL 3559470, at *1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 10, 2021). “The court should not, however, stay discovery which is necessary to gather facts in defense of the motion.” Tilley, 270 F. Supp. 2d at 734.
District courts have weighed the following factors when considering whether to grant a motion to stay discovery: (1) balancing the potential prejudice to the nonmovant produced by a delay in discovery against the possibility that the dispositive motion will be granted and entirely eliminate the need for discovery; (2) the strength of the motion's arguments including the hardship and equity to the movant if the action is not stayed; (3) whether discovery is necessary for the non-moving party to respond to the motion to dismiss; and (4) the interests of judicial economy. Bodenhamer, 2021 WL 3559470 at *1; Blankenship, 2020 WL 748874 at *2.
On March 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants alleging breach of contract arising from his time as a student at American Public University System/American Military University. ECF No. 1. On May 17, 2021, Summons were served on each Defendant. ECF No. 22-28. On June 7, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim [ECF No. 29], to which there was also a Response [ECF No. 33] and a Reply [ECF No. 38]. Before entry of this Court's First Order and Notice Regarding Discovery and Scheduling Conference [ECF No. 74] on August 30, 2021, Plaintiff prematurely served each Defendant with subpoenas requesting documents and electronically stored information. ECF No. 57-1. On August 26, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion to Quash [ECF No. 57] the subpoenas, which the Court granted by Order [ECF No. 82] on September 3, 2021.
As noted in the procedural posture above, the Court has already waded into the shallow waters of discovery before the parties have held a Scheduling Conference. A dispositive Motion to Dismiss is pending before the Court that has been fully briefed by the parties. The Motion does not require further discovery by either party because it relies solely upon the allegations in the Complaint. Furthermore, Plaintiff has already responded to the Motion. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, if granted, could dispose of all claims against each of the thirteen Defendants, but at the very least, will likely serve to narrow the issues and the scope of discovery going forward, promoting judicial efficiency and saving both parties unneeded litigation expense. Should this Court decide not to stay discovery and the Motion to Dismiss is later granted, both the Court's and parties' time and resources devoted to discovery will be wasted. Given the nature of the action, it is unlikely that delaying discovery will prejudice Plaintiff's ability to pursue his claims if the Motion to Dismiss is denied. While the Court agrees with Plaintiff that further delay is not ideal for the preservation of witness memory [ECF No. 78-1],[2] this consideration is outweighed by other factors such as efficiency, expense, and hardship on Defendants.
*2 Accordingly, the Court finds good cause and does hereby GRANT the Defendants' Motion for Protective Order and discovery in this case shall be STAYED until further Order of this Court upon resolution of Defendants' pending Motion to Dismiss.
Any party may, within fourteen (14) days of this Order, file with the Clerk of this Court, specific written objections, identifying the portions of the Order to which objection is made, and the basis of such objection. A copy of such objections should also be submitted to the Honorable Gina M. Groh, Chief United States District Judge. Failure to file written objections as set forth above shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-48 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985). The filing of objections will not stay this Order.
The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff and all counsel of record, as provided in the Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.
Respectfully submitted this 7th day of September, 2021.