Automated Summary
Key Facts
Defendants Galencare, Inc. and Universal Protection Service, LLC moved to stay discovery pending the Court's ruling on motions to dismiss. Plaintiff Willie Green, proceeding pro se, opposed the stay. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. The Court granted the defendants' motion to stay discovery and stayed all other outstanding deadlines in the Case Management and Scheduling Order. The Court denied Green's motions to strike the motions to dismiss and denied his motion to appoint a mediator. The Court granted in part Green's motion for leave to file a response past the deadline, allowing him to file a response to the operative motions to dismiss no later than November 13, 2025, but denied his motion to exceed the page limit.
Issues
- The court must determine whether to grant defendants' motion to stay discovery pending the Court's ruling on motions to dismiss, considering that resolving these motions before discovery begins will help avoid unnecessary costs and burdens on litigants and the Court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).
- The court must decide whether to strike the defendants' motions to dismiss on the grounds that they failed to confer with the plaintiff again prior to filing, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(f), despite the plaintiff's assurance that changes in the Third Amended Complaint were minimal.
- The court must decide whether to grant the plaintiff's motion to exceed the page limit for their response, noting that the Court grants in part the motion to extend the deadline but denies the motion to the extent that the plaintiff asks to exceed the page limit, requiring compliance with Local Rule 1.08.
- The court must determine whether to grant the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a response to the operative motions to dismiss past the established deadline, considering that failure to file Local Rule 3.01(g) does not constitute excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B).
Holdings
- The court denies the plaintiff's motion to appoint a mediator without prejudice in light of the discovery stay order.
- The court denies the plaintiff's motions to strike the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that re-conferral would likely be of no merit given the minimal changes in the Third Amended Complaint.
- The court grants in part the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a response past the deadline, allowing a response to the operative motions to dismiss no later than November 13, 2025, but denies the motion to exceed the page limit.
- The court denies the plaintiff's motion to exceed the page limit for his response to the motions to dismiss.
- The court grants the defendants' motion to stay discovery pending the Court's ruling on motions to dismiss, and stays all other outstanding deadlines in the Case Management and Scheduling Order, including the deadline to complete mediation.
Remedies
- All deadlines in the Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. 71) are stayed, including the deadline to complete mediation.
- The Court grants in part Green's motion for leave to file a response past the deadline (Doc. 92), allowing Green to file a response to the operative motions to dismiss no later than November 13, 2025.
- The Court grants Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 82), staying all discovery proceedings until the Court rules on the pending motions to dismiss.
Legal Principles
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) allows courts to strike from pleadings insufficient defenses or redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. Courts may dismiss without prejudice motions for failure to confer under Local Rule 3.01(g) but decline when re-conferral would likely be of no merit.
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) addresses excusable neglect. A hope that the Court would grant a motion to strike is not excusable neglect justifying an untimely response, though courts may grant in part motions to extend deadlines while denying requests to exceed page limits.
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) permits courts to stay discovery for good cause to protect parties from annoyance, oppression, undue burden, or expense. Courts should resolve motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim before discovery begins to avoid unnecessary costs.
Precedent Name
- Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman
- Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp.
Cited Statute
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Judge Name
Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle presiding over this case
Passage Text
- The defendants have each filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. (Docs. 79, 81). Resolving these motions before discovery begins will help avoid unnecessary costs and burdens on the litigants and the Court. As a result, good cause exists to stay discovery, and the defendants' motion to stay discovery is granted.
- 1. Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 82) is GRANTED. All deadlines in the Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. 71) are STAYED. 2. Green's Motion to Appoint a Mediator (Doc. 85) is DENIED without prejudice in the light of the above. 3. Green's Motions to Strike (Docs. 84, 89, 90) are DENIED. 4. The Court GRANTS in part Green's motion for leave to file a response past the deadline (Doc. 92). Green may file a response to the operative motions to dismiss no later than November 13, 2025. 5. The Court DENIES Green's Motion to Exceed the Page Limit (Doc. 93).
- Green's motion does not satisfy these criteria. While this Court may dismiss without prejudice a motion for failure to confer under Local Rule 3.01(g), it declines to do so where, as here, re-conferral would likely be of no merit in the light of Green's assurance that changes in the Third Amended Complaint were minimal. Thus, the Court denies the motions to strike.