Order Granting Stay of Discovery — Wall v. CDC

Summary

Order in Lucas Wall against Centers for Disease Control & Prevention and other Defendants, United States District Court Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, Case No: 6:21-cv-975-PGB-DCI (Doc. 156). It grants the Motion to Stay Discovery by Defendants Greater Orlando Aviation Authority (GOAA) and Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX) (Doc. 153), and the Motion for Protective Order by the Federal Defendants (Doc. 150). The Order states that the Court has issued a report recommending that Plaintiff's claims against GOAA and LYNX be dismissed with prejudice (Doc. 155), and that discovery may not proceed in any civil case until the parties have conducted a case management conference. It orders that all discovery in this case is stayed.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 156 Filed 10/07/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID 4898




                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
                               ORLANDO DIVISION
 LUCAS WALL,

                       Plaintiff,

 v.                                                              Case No: 6:21-cv-975-PGB-DCI

 CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL
 & PREVENTION, DEPARTMENT OF
 HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES,
 TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
 ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT
 OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
 DEPARTMENT OF
 TRANSPORTATION, JOSEPH BIDEN,
 GREATER ORLANDO AVIATION
 AUTHORITY and CENTRAL
 FLORIDA REGIONAL
 TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,

                       Defendants.


                                             ORDER
        This cause comes before the Court for consideration without oral argument on the

 following motions:

              Motion to Stay Discovery by Defendants Greater Orlando Aviation Authority
               (GOAA) and Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX) (Doc.
               153); and

              Motion for Protective Order by Defendants Centers for Disease Control and
               Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
               Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Department of Homeland Security
               (DHS), Department of Transportation (DOT), and Joseph R. Biden, Jr., in his
               official capacity as President of the United States of America (collectively, the
               Federal Defendants) (Doc. 150).

        For the reasons that follow, the Motion to Stay and Motion for Protective Order are granted.
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 156 Filed 10/07/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID 4899




         1. The Motion to Stay

         In the Motion to Stay, GOAA and LYNX argue that all discovery against them should be

 stayed in light of their pending motions to dismiss, which they assert are case dispositive and

 clearly meritorious. Plaintiff disagrees, asserting, in part, that:

         Any discovery postponement and resulting delay in judgment would be of
         enormous consequence and prejudice to plaintiff plus all GOAA and LYNX
         passengers who medically can’t tolerate face masks or want to exercise their right
         to refuse administration of an experimental medical device. We are being deprived
         every day of our right to use taxpayer-funded public transportation.

 Doc. 154 at 3. Plaintiff also asserts that even if the motions to dismiss are granted he should be

 given leave to amend so the case would remain open and pending. Id.

         The Court has broad discretion to stay discovery as part of its inherent authority to control

 its docket. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); see also Panola Land Buyers Ass’n v.

 Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1560 (11th Cir. 1985) (“[A] magistrate has broad discretion to stay

 discovery pending decision on a dispositive motion.”). A motion to stay discovery pending a

 ruling on a dispositive motion is generally disfavored, “because when discovery is delayed or

 prolonged it can create case management problems which impede the Court’s responsibility to

 expedite discovery and cause unnecessary litigation expenses and problems.” Feldman v. Flood,

 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (quoting Simpson v. Specialty Retail Concepts, Inc., 121

 F.R.D. 261 (M.D.N.C. 1988)). The moving party bears the burden of showing good cause to stay

 discovery. Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652. In determining whether a stay of discovery is warranted,

 the Court must balance the harm produced by delay against the possibility that the dispositive

 motion will be granted and entirely eliminate the need for discovery. Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652.

 In making this determination, “it is necessary for the Court to take a preliminary peek at the merits




                                                   -2-
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 156 Filed 10/07/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID 4900




 of the [dispositive motion] to see if it appears to be clearly meritorious and truly case dispositive.”

 Id. at 652-53 (internal quotation marks omitted).

          Here, the Court has issued a report recommending that Plaintiff’s claims against GOAA

 and LYNX be dismissed with prejudice. Doc. 155. Thus, the undersigned has taken more than a

 preliminary peek, and in doing so has found that the motions to dismiss by GOAA and LYNX are

 both clearly meritorious and completely dispositive of the claims against them. Thus, there is good

 cause to stay discovery as against GOAA and LYNX. The Court notes also that Plaintiff’s

 response—as other of his filings—appear as though Plaintiff is arguing prejudice to a class of

 persons, and not himself. The pro se Plaintiff does not—and cannot—represent the interests of

 other persons in this case, and his attempts to invoke claims as to a class of persons are not well-

 taken.

          2. The Motion for Protective Order

          In the Motion for Protective Order, the Federal Defendants seek protection from a series

 of written discovery requests that Plaintiff served upon them. The Federal Defendants assert that

 this case is an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) case in which no discovery is permitted absent

 “a strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior.” Marllantas, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 806 F. App’x

 864, 867 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting Dep’t of Commerce v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551, 2574 (2019)).

 In the alternative, the Federal Defendants argue that even if discovery were permitted, it should be

 stayed pending resolution of the parties’ fully briefed dispositive motions. Plaintiff responds that

 his agreement that this case is a record-review case does not mean he conceded discovery is not

 appropriate.




                                                  -3-
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 156 Filed 10/07/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID 4901




          On August 19, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Notice of Compliance with Court Order [Doc.

 30] Regarding Determination of Exemption to Filing Case Management Report. Doc. 131. In that

 Joint Notice, the parties represented as follows:

          Plaintiff, Lucas Wall, and Defendants, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
          Department of Health and Human Services, Transportation Security
          Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Transportation,
          Joseph Biden, in his official capacity as President of the United States Of America,
          Greater Orlando Aviation Authority, and Central Florida Regional Transportation
          Authority, hereby certify that, in compliance with this Court’s directions in the
          Order dated June 17, 2021 (Doc. 30), they have consulted Local Rule 3.02 and
          conferred with each other, and have determined that this action falls under the
          exception in Local Rule 3.02(d)(2): an action for review on an administrative
          record that is not under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
          Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 3.02(a), no case management conference or
          case management report is required of the parties at this time.

 Doc. 131.

          Thus, it appears that all parties agree this case is an action for review of an administrative

 record. As such, discovery is limited. See, e.g., Marllantas, 806 F. App’x at 867. If a party seeks

 discovery—or the issuance of a case management report governing discovery—that party must

 file a motion seeking authorization to conduct discovery in this case. More basically, though, no

 discovery may proceed in any civil case unless and until the parties have conducted a case

 management conference. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f).1 Here, the parties chose not to conduct a case

 management conference at the outset of this litigation, so discovery is not open in this case.

 Further, as the undersigned explained in the report recommending the Federal Defendants’ motion

 to dismiss be granted in part, that motion to dismiss was clearly meritorious (in part) and entirely

 dispositive of claims against certain of the Federal Defendants. Thus, this is another reason to stay




 1
     This is also an alternative reason to grant the Motion to Stay by GOAA and LYNX.



                                                  -4-
Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 156 Filed 10/07/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID 4902




 discovery and issue a protective order—at least unless and until discovery is permitted to go

 forward.

        3. Conclusion

        Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion to Stay and the Motion for Protective Order

 are GRANTED. All discovery in this case is STAYED.

        ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 7, 2021.




                                             -5-


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.390847.156.0.pdf

Size

185,585 bytes

SHA-256

19f310a27e9966770a810c8705c6ad0ec1ed0c20d2104553ed5aea87bbb11553

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.390847.156.0.pdf

Original

archive.org