Silverstein v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Full title: THOMAS SILVERSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, sued in its…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Jul 8, 2009

Civil Action No. 07-cv-02471-PAB-KMT (D. Colo. Jul. 8, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 07-cv-02471-PAB-KMT.

July 8, 2009

ORDER

KATHLEEN TAFOYA, Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the court on "Defendants' Motion for Protective Order and to Stay Discovery." [Doc. No. 160, filed May 19, 2009.] Plaintiff filed "Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order and to Stay Discovery (Doc. 160" on May 21, 2009 [Doc. No. 166] and Defendants replied on June 5, 2009 [Doc. No. 170].

Defendants request that discovery in this case, including at least thirteen planned depositions, be delayed until the four newly added defendants¹ are served and the time for their responsive pleading has run. Defendants have asserted that a stay of discovery would allow the newly added Defendants an opportunity to fully participate in the remaining discovery, including expert depositions. Plaintiff has objected to the abbreviated stay claiming that Plaintiff would be unduly prejudiced, in spite of the fact that Plaintiff has requested and received numerous stays and continuances of various pretrial dates in this case.

1 Plaintiff's Motion to file a Second Amended Complaint wasunopposed by Defendants and was granted on May 14, 2009. The Second Amended Complaint was filed the same day.

The Court finds that Defendants request is well-founded and based on legitimate needs and considerations in the case, while the Plaintiff's objection appears to be without reason or justification other than to be purely obstreperous. The addition of the new defendants was occasioned by the Plaintiff filing a Second Amended Complaint approximately one and one-half years after the case was originally opened. To argue that a stay of approximately sixty days to allow for service of the new defendants and provide for their need to resolve representation issues, decide on a defense strategy and to prepare and file appropriate responses to the Second Amended Complaint unduly prejudices the Plaintiff is disingenuous, at best.

Waivers of Service were filed by the Plaintiff for the four newly added defendants, indicating an effective date of service as May 19, 2009. [Doc. Nos. 171 — 174].] The Clerk has noted an Answer date of July 20, 2009. Id.

Therefore, it is ORDERED

"Defendants' Motion for Protective Order and to Stay Discovery" [Doc. No. 160] is GRANTED. Discovery in this matter is temporarily stayed through and including July 20, 2009.

It is further ORDERED

The status/scheduling conference now set for July 16, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. is VACATED and re-scheduled for July 22, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.