Gunn v. Ayala

Background

Gunn’s operative complaint alleged that an incident involving Edwin Ayala occurred on September 11, 2018. The opinion states that the court had previously dismissed Gunn’s claims for money damages against Ayala in his official capacity, claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against Ayala in his official capacity, and Gunn’s state-law claims. The court also ordered limited discovery on whether Gunn had failed to complete required administrative procedures. After that discovery, the court denied Ayala’s summary-judgment motion on the limited issue of non-exhaustion.

The case then proceeded under a scheduling order and was referred to Magistrate Judge Judith McCarthy. Counsel appearing for Gunn for the limited purpose of conducting depositions later indicated that the date in the complaint might be wrong and that the alleged incident may have occurred in October 2017 instead. Gunn’s anticipated request to amend the complaint had not yet been filed when the court considered the discovery dispute.

Parties’ Positions

Ayala opposed Gunn’s request to proceed with depositions while the anticipated amendment request was pending. Ayala argued that changing the alleged incident date by nearly a year could substantially expand discovery, affect his defense, and make it unclear which complaint should define the depositions. He also argued that proceeding immediately could cause unnecessary expense if the depositions later had to be repeated.

The supplied text is principally Ayala’s opposition letter, followed by the court’s order. It does not state Gunn’s full argument beyond the reference to his position that the proposed new date would leave enough time to prepare for depositions.

Ruling

Judge Kenneth M. Karas ordered: “Depositions are stayed until the putative Motion to Amend is resolved.” The court said that neither side would be prejudiced by pausing discovery until it was clear what the operative complaint would allege about the timing of the alleged misconduct.

This order pauses depositions; it does not decide the anticipated request to amend the complaint. The supplied text also does not state that the court granted or denied that anticipated request.