Opinion
4:08CV3021.
April 7, 2008
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion for leave to seek early discovery pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d) (Filing No. 94), the response of the State defendants (Filing No. 103), and the brief in opposition filed by the defendant-intervenor (Filing No. 104). Having reviewed the motion, the parties' briefs and submissions, and the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds plaintiff's motion should be denied.
Rule 26(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that "[a] party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f)," unless authorized by stipulation or court order. "Although the rule does not say so, it is implicit that some showing of good cause should be made to justify such an order; the Advisory Committee Notes suggest that relief would be appropriate in cases involving requests for a preliminary injunction or motions challenging personal jurisdiction." 8 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2046.1.
The Court has already denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and motion for reconsideration, and because the Court's denial is now the subject of an interlocutory appeal before the Eighth Circuit, this Court is currently divested of jurisdiction with respect to the motion for preliminary injunction pending appeal. The Court finds there are no exceptional circumstances justifying deviation from the standard discovery procedures in this matter. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to seek early discovery (Filing No. 94) is denied.