IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Karen Boddie, :

Plaintiff, :

v. : Case No. 2:12-cv-158

 : JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON

PNC Bank, NA, et al., Magistrate Judge Kemp

Defendants. :

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court to consider several

discovery motions, including a motion to compel filed by

plaintiff Karen Boddie (Doc. #27), a motion to stay discovery

filed by defendant PNC Bank, N.A. (“PNC Bank”) (Doc. #40), and a

motion to quash filed by Ms. Boddie (Doc. #48). For the reasons

set forth below, all of these motions will be denied. 

I. Background

This case involves a dispute over plaintiff Karen Boddie’s

attempt to engage in a specific banking transaction at the Bexley

Branch of PNC Bank on July 30, 2011. Believing that she had been

prevented from completing the transaction as she requested due to

her race and that she was otherwise mistreated by bank employees,

Ms. Boddie filed an eleven-count complaint against both PNC Bank

and PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (“PNC Financial”).

II. Discussion

Because a stay of discovery would effectively moot the

motion to compel and the motion to quash, the Court addresses the

motion to stay first. After doing so, the Court addresses the

motion to compel and the motion to quash.

A. The Motion to Stay

In its motion to stay, PNC Bank moves this Court for an

Case: 2:12-cv-00158-MHW-TPK Doc #: 53 Filed: 01/31/13 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>
order staying all discovery pending determination of its motion

to dismiss for lack of standing. (Doc. #40 at 1). Ms. Boddie

opposes the stay. For the following reasons, no stay of

discovery will be ordered.

PNC Bank moved for a stay in this case previously, advancing

reasoning similar to that offered in support of its current

motion. Specifically, PNC Bank sets forth a typical argument for

staying discovery pending resolution of a dispositive motion: 

that if the motion is granted in its entirety, there will be no

need for discovery at all. Hence, PNC Bank asserts that a stay

will conserve resources for the Court as well as the parties. As

established in the Court’s pre-trial order, the current discovery

cut-off date is February 28, 2013. (Doc. #10).

As this Court has observed, a stay of discovery for any

reason is a matter ordinarily committed to the sound discretion

of the trial court. See Chrysler Corp. v. Fedders Corp., 643

F.2d 1229, 1240 (6th Cir. 1981). In ruling upon a motion for a

stay, the Court is required to weigh the burden of proceeding

with discovery upon the party from whom discovery is sought

against the hardship that would be worked by a denial of

discovery. See Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopedic

Surgeons, 706 F.2d 1488, 1493 (7th Cir. 1983). Additionally, the

Court is required to take into account any societal interests

that are implicated by either proceeding or postponing discovery. 

See id. When a stay, rather than a prohibition, of discovery is

sought, the burden upon the party requesting the stay is less

than if he were requesting a total freedom from discovery. See

id.

The argument that discovery should be stayed pending the

resolution of a dispositive motion is typically unpersuasive. 

See, e.g., Gray v. First Winthrop Corp., 133 F.R.D. 39, 40 (N. D.

Cal. 1990) (stating that if the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

-2-

Case: 2:12-cv-00158-MHW-TPK Doc #: 53 Filed: 01/31/13 Page: 2 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>
had contemplated that a pending dispositive motion would stay

discovery, they would contain a provision to that effect). 

Indeed, this Court has noted that the occasions when it has

granted such a stay are few, arising where there are issues of

immunity from suit, or a narrow legal issue that is evaluated

easily in order to determine whether the dispositive motion has

merit. (Doc. #28 at 4). 

Despite the fact that stays of discovery during the pendency

of dispositive motions are rarely granted, the Court does

consider each such motion on its individual merits. In Heartland

Jockey Club Ltd. v. Penn National Gaming, Inc., 2009 WL 5171829,

at *4 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 21, 2009), this Court noted that it: 

takes seriously its obligation to manage discovery and

recognizes that there are cases where the plaintiff's

claim is so tenuous, and the potential injury to either

private or societal interests from unfettered discovery

is so great, that the Court must limit or preclude

discovery in order to strike the proper balance between

the competing interests involved.

Id. As the Court found with respect to PNC Bank’s prior motion

to stay, that does not appear to be the case in the instant

matter.

How this lawsuit may impact the pending bankruptcy matter

involving Ms. Boddie and whether this litigation will be

precluded from proceeding in light of the bankruptcy matter are

not issues that are resolved easily in order to determine whether

the motion to dismiss for lack of standing will be meritorious. 

In PNC Bank’s own words, “[a]t this point, it is a big unknown

how the bankruptcy will impact this litigation.” (Doc. #40 at

2). For these reasons, and in the exercise of its discretion,

the Court denies the PNC Bank’s motion for a stay of discovery

pending a resolution of the motion to dismiss for lack of

standing. (Doc. #40). Having resolved the motion to stay, the

Court next considers Ms. Boddie’s motion to compel.

-3-

Case: 2:12-cv-00158-MHW-TPK Doc #: 53 Filed: 01/31/13 Page: 3 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>
B. The Motion to Compel

Pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 37, Ms. Boddie filed a motion to

compel requesting that the Court order PNC Bank to comply with

Ms. Boddie’s request for production of documents. (Doc. #27). 

In the motion, Ms. Boddie contends that PNC Bank has failed to

comply with the request that it produce:

3. Any and all documents describing PNC Bank policy

and/or procedure regarding the retention of any video

recording of bank premises and/or activity on July 30,

2011 [and]

4. Any and all documents identifying the custodian(s) of

video recording(s) of Bexley premises and/or activity

made on July 30, 2011.

(Id. at 2). Ms. Boddie likewise seeks reasonable expenses,

including attorneys fees, incurred in connection with the motion

to compel. (Id. at 1). 

PNC Bank filed an opposition to the motion to compel,

asserting that it has “appropriately and timely responded to

Plaintiff’s discovery requests and has produced the relevant,

responsive documents requested of it.” (Doc. #32 at 1). PNC

Bank states:

Plaintiff’s apparent frustration arises from (1)

difficulty in using the technology required to encrypt

PNC Bank’s production, which included confidential

information as well as Plaintiff’s personally identifying

information; (2) her request for a production log, which

has been resolved; and (3) her baseless belief that PNC

Bank must have additional responsive documents it has not

produced, which is simply not true at this point.

(Id.) Because PNC Bank asserts that it has complied fully with

discovery, it urges this Court to deny Ms. Boddie’s motion. 

(Id.) 

Ms. Boddie filed a reply in support of her motion to compel. 

(Doc. #35). In the reply, Ms. Boddie contends that she did not

have difficulty with the technology required to encrypt PNC

-4-

Case: 2:12-cv-00158-MHW-TPK Doc #: 53 Filed: 01/31/13 Page: 4 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Bank’s production. (Id. at 3). Rather, Ms. Boddie asserts that

PNC Bank provided her with a blank CD, which was “not a timely

response to [her] discovery request.” (Id.) As to the documents

that were produced, Ms. Boddie urges that PNC Bank produced them

without identifying the discovery request to which the documents

were responsive. (Id. at 4). Finally, Ms. Boddie claims that

PNC Bank’s representations that it continues to search for

responsive documents “renders the requirement to respond within a

time certain without consequence and the discovery process

fruitless.” (Id.)

This Court finds Ms. Boddie’s arguments to be without merit. 

The record reflects that PNC Bank’s counsel resolved the problems

related to viewing the CD in a timely and professional manner. 

(Doc. #32 at 3). Indeed, the record reflects PNC Bank’s counsel

responded to an email about the CD on Saturday, July 14, 2012,

the very day that Ms. Boddie’s counsel raised the issue. (Id.,

Brewer Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 2). The next business day, Monday, July

16, PNC Bank’s counsel sent the documents to Ms. Boddie’s counsel

by email, rather than CD, thereby resolving the issue. (Id.,

Brewer Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 3). Thus, PNC Bank’s counsel resolved any

difficulty arising from the encrypted CD in an expeditious

manner.

As to Ms. Boddie’s complaint that PNC Bank’s document

production was not identified properly, the Court again finds

that PNC Bank’s counsel responded to Ms. Boddie’s request in a

timely and appropriate fashion. The record reflects that, on

July 17, 2012, Ms. Boddie’s counsel requested information

identifying which documents were responsive to which document

requests. (Id. at 4, Ex. 4). On the same day, PNC Bank’s

counsel responded that it would produce a log containing the

requested information. (Id., Ex. 5). The record reflects that

PNC counsel’s indeed produced a log containing the requested

-5-

Case: 2:12-cv-00158-MHW-TPK Doc #: 53 Filed: 01/31/13 Page: 5 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>
information within three business days. (Id., Brewer Decl. at ¶

9). PNC Bank claims that it did not provide this information

from the outset because the identification “was obvious from both

the documents and the requests.” (Id.) Whether this approach

was justified is not before this Court on the motion to compel. 

Rather, Ms. Boddie is requesting that the Court order PNC Bank to

comply with her request for production of documents. (Doc. #27). 

Because the Court finds that PNC Bank complied with Ms. Boddie’s

request for production, the motion is denied.

This outcome remains unchanged despite Ms. Boddie’s claims

that PNC Bank’s continued search for documents is improper. The

record reflects that PNC Bank is not delaying its response to Ms.

Boddie’s requests citing its continuing search for responsive

information. To the contrary, PNC Bank has complied and produced

all of the responsive documents that it is aware of after its

search for the requested information. PNC Bank’s continued

willingness to search for documents was in response to Ms.

Boddie’s insistence that PNC Bank’s production was insufficient. 

(See Doc. #32, Ex. 8) (Ms. Boddie’s counsel quoting an exchange

between Humpty-Dumpty and Alice in Lewis Carroll’s “Through the

Looking Glass” to convey that PNC Bank’s response was

inadequate). Consequently, this Court finds no reason to compel

PNC Bank’s compliance.

Plaintiff has not set forth a valid basis upon which to

compel any action by PNC Bank. Because Ms. Boddie has failed to

demonstrate any failure on the part of PNC Bank to comply with

the discovery requested, the motion to compel is denied. (Doc.

#27). 

C. The Motion to Quash

Finally, the Court turns to Ms. Boddie’s motion to quash. 

(Doc. #48). In her motion, Ms. Boddie requests that this Court

quash the subpoena duces tecum issued by PNC Bank “to Jeffrey

-6-

Case: 2:12-cv-00158-MHW-TPK Doc #: 53 Filed: 01/31/13 Page: 6 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Ruple on December 17, 2012 and disgorge an [sic] document

received in response to the [s]ubpoena on the grounds that the

[s]ubpoena violates this Court’s order. . . . ” (Id. at 1). 

On November 16, 2012, this Court issued an order

memorializing a status conference it held two days prior on Ms.

Boddie’s motion to compel. (Doc. #43). In the order, the Court

noted that PNC Bank had moved for a stay of discovery pending

resolution of the motion to dismiss for lack of standing. (Id.

at 1). Ms. Boddie had not yet responded to the motion to stay. 

(Id.) Consequently, the Court stated that it could not make a

final decision on the stay issue, but it “did stay any active

exchange of discovery until the stay motion is briefed.” (Id.)

Ms. Boddie asserts that, notwithstanding the Court’s order,

PNC Bank issued a subpoena duces tecum “to Jeffrey Ruple, an

attorney with the law firm of Buckley King, for a settlement

agreement to which Plaintiff is a party on December 17, 2012.” 

(Doc. #48 at 2). Ms. Boddie thus contends that the subpoena was

issued and served in violation of this Court’s order, and it

should be quashed. (Id. at 3). Ms. Boddie further claims that

PNC Bank failed to comply with the prior notice requirement in F.

R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1), which constitutes another ground on which to

quash the subpoena. (Id.) Last, Ms. Boddie claims that she is

entitled to attorneys fees under F. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(2). (Id.)

In opposition, PNC Bank states that the subpoena at issue

did not relate to merits discovery. (Doc. #50 at 1). To the

contrary, PNC Bank contends that the subpoena related solely to

issues that Ms. Boddie placed before the Court in her opposition

to the motion to dismiss for lack of standing. (Id.) In

particular, PNC Bank alleges that, in the course of evaluating

Ms. Boddie’s claim that she inadvertently failed to disclose this

litigation to her bankruptcy counsel, it learned that Ms. Boddie

had settled a prior litigation captioned Boddie v. B.D. Mongolian

-7-

Case: 2:12-cv-00158-MHW-TPK Doc #: 53 Filed: 01/31/13 Page: 7 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>
BarBeQue, Franklin County Com. Pl. No. 10 CV 005313 while in

bankruptcy and concealed that lawsuit and settlement from the

bankruptcy court and trustee. (Id. at 2). PNC Bank states that,

for the singular purpose of responding to Ms. Boddie’s contention

that her failure to disclose was inadvertent, it “subpoenaed

counsel for Mongolian BarBeQue in that litigation to review the

terms of the settlement agreement.” (Id.) PNC Bank claims that

the single document it requested is one that Ms. Boddie or her

counsel should have already in their possession. (Id.) PNC Bank

likewise argues that Ms. Boddie lacks standing to seek to quash

the subpoena issued to a non-party, and it complied with the

relevant notice provision. (Id. at 3). For these reasons, PNC

asks that Ms. Boddie’s motion to quash be denied. (Id. at 5).

Ms. Boddie filed a reply brief in support of her motion,

reiterating her position that the subpoena violates the Court’s

order staying discovery. (Doc. #51 at 2). Ms. Boddie also

contends that she has standing to challenge the subpoena, which

PNC Bank served in violation of the prior notice requirement. 

(Id. at 4). Finally, Ms. Boddie argues that the discovery sought

by the subpoena is not reasonably calculated to lead to

admissible evidence. (Id. at 5-6). 

The Court finds Ms. Boddie’s arguments to be without merit. 

Even assuming that Ms. Boddie has standing to move to quash the

subpoena issued to the non-party, this Court’s stay of discovery

in the instant case related solely to merits discovery; it was

not intended to bar any discovery relevant to the pending motion

to dismiss for lack of standing. (Doc. #43). As suggested by

PNC Bank, the discovery at issue related only to Ms. Boddie’s

allegation that her failure to disclose the instant lawsuit was

inadvertent. Consequently, the discovery at issue was not based

on the merits of this case, and it is relevant to the pending

motion to dismiss. As to the notice requirement, the record

-8-

Case: 2:12-cv-00158-MHW-TPK Doc #: 53 Filed: 01/31/13 Page: 8 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>
reflects that PNC Bank indeed complied with F. R. Civ. P.

45(b)(1), which requires notice to be served on each party before

a subpoena that commands the production of documents is served.

(See Motley Decl. at ¶ 3-4, Ex. A-B). Thus, an alleged lack of

notice cannot serve as a basis to quash the subpoena. Finding

Ms. Boddie’s motion to be without merit, the Court also denies

her corresponding request for attorneys fees. 

III. Conclusion 

For the reasons set forth above, Ms. Boddie’s motion to

compel is denied (Doc. #27), PNC Bank’s motion to stay discovery

is denied (Doc. #40), and Ms. Boddie’s motion to quash is denied

(Doc. #48). 

IV. Procedure for Seeking Reconsideration

Any party may, within fourteen days after this Order is

filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for

reconsideration by a District Judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A),

Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.; Eastern Division Order No. 91-3, pt.

I., F., 5. The motion must specifically designate the order or

part in question and the basis for any objection. Responses to

objections are due fourteen days after objections are filed and

replies by the objecting party are due seven days thereafter. 

The District Judge, upon consideration of the motion, shall set

aside any part of this Order found to be clearly erroneous or

contrary to law.

This order is in full force and effect, notwithstanding the

filing of any objections, unless stayed by the Magistrate Judge

or District Judge. S.D. Ohio L.R. 72.4.

/s/ Terence P. Kemp 

United States Magistrate Judge

-9-

Case: 2:12-cv-00158-MHW-TPK Doc #: 53 Filed: 01/31/13 Page: 9 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>