Turner v. Dellapia

Background

The defendants moved to stay, or pause, discovery while the County Defendants’ and the United States’ motions to dismiss were pending. The court considered the scope of the requested discovery, possible prejudice, and the strength of the dismissal motions.

The court found that the County Defendants and the United States had presented substantial arguments for dismissal. It also determined that the case would proceed against George Gjelaj and that deciding the dismissal motions could take many months. The court found no prejudice to the defendants from allowing discovery to proceed against Gjelaj. It stated that if discovery later proceeded against the County Defendants, the plaintiff—not the defendants or Gjelaj—would likely face prejudice by having to be questioned again.

Ruling

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to stay discovery. The case was to proceed against George Gjelaj, while discovery was stayed as to all other defendants.

The court directed Gjelaj’s attorney to contact the plaintiff by telephone within 21 days to create a discovery plan under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). If counsel lacked the plaintiff’s telephone number, counsel had to write to the plaintiff immediately and arrange a specific date and time for a call. The plan had to include deadlines for document requests and initial questions, expert disclosures, rebuttal-expert disclosures, and completion of discovery. Counsel for the defendants had to file the plan by March 29, 2021. The court also stated that the parties could request mediation or another telephone conference and that it would issue a scheduling order after receiving the proposed plan.

The order reminded the parties to promptly report changes to their addresses or telephone numbers and stated that failure to do so could lead to dismissal or entry of a default. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to the plaintiff, whom the opinion identifies as proceeding without a lawyer.