IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

DARRELL J. DeBREW, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 Case No. 2:12-cv-170 

vs. Judge Watson 

 Magistrate Judge King 

VICKIE STRINGER, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 Plaintiff Darrell J. DeBrew, who is proceeding without the 

assistance of counsel, filed this action on February 24, 2012, seeking 

damages and injunctive relief from alleged copyright violations of two 

books written by him and published by defendant Triple Crown 

Productions, LLC (“Triple Crown”). On June 7, 2012, the Court granted 

defendants’ motion to stay this action pending arbitration. Opinion 

and Order, Doc. No. 44. The Court determined that plaintiff and 

Triple Crown agreed to arbitrate the claims at issue in this case and 

that the entire case should be stayed because, inter alia, “the 

liability of the other Defendants is dependent on the division of 

rights between Triple Crown and DeBrew.” Id. at pp. 4-6. 

 Arbitration proceedings have now been completed, resulting in an 

arbitration award in favor of defendant Triple Crown and against 

plaintiff. See Arbitration Award, attached to Motion to Vacate the 

Arbitration Award as Doc. No. 64-2. Defendants Vickie Stringer and 

Triple Crown have filed a motion to confirm that award pursuant to 9 

Case: 2:12-cv-00170-MHW-NMK Doc #: 86 Filed: 09/03/13 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

U.S.C. § 9, Defendants Vickie Stringer and Triple Crown Publications’ 

Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award (“Motion to Confirm the 

Arbitration Award”), Doc. No. 61, and plaintiff has filed a motion to 

vacate that award, Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award Pursuant to 

Federal Arbitration Act (“Motion to Vacate the Arbitration Award”), 

Doc. No. 64. Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon.com”), has filed a 

motion for summary judgment, Defendant Amazon.com’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment, Doc. No. 76, and defendant Ingram Book Group, Inc. 

(“Ingram”), has filed a motion for summary judgment, Motion of 

Defendant Ingram Book Group Inc. for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 78. 

Defendant Baker & Taylor, Inc. (“Baker & Taylor”), is expected to file 

a dispositive motion “shortly.” See Doc. No. 77. 

 This matter is now before the Court for consideration of 

Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery, Doc No. 66. Defendants seek to 

stay discovery in this action until the Motion to Confirm the 

Arbitration Award, the Motion to Vacate the Arbitration Award, and 

defendants’ dispositive motions are resolved. Plaintiff opposes 

Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery on the basis that discovery is 

necessary to challenge the arbitration award. Motion to Compel 

Discovery and Deny Defendants’ Request to Stay Discovery or Deny It 

(“Plaintiff’s Response”), Doc. No. 69. Defendants have filed a reply, 

Doc. No. 77. This matter is now ripe for consideration 

 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grant parties the right to 

“obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant 

to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Nevertheless, Rule 26 provides that a person resisting discovery may 

Case: 2:12-cv-00170-MHW-NMK Doc #: 86 Filed: 09/03/13 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3 

move the court, for good cause shown, to protect the person or party 

from “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or 

expense, including . . . forbidding the . . . discovery.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A). “̔Trial courts have broad discretion and 

inherent power to stay discovery until preliminary questions that may 

dispose of the case are determined.’” Gettings v. Bldg. Laborers 

Local 310 Fringe Benefits Fund, 349 F.3d 300, 304 (6th Cir. 2003) 

(quoting Hahn v. Star Bank, 190 F.3d 708, 719 (6th Cir. 1999)). 

“Limitations on pretrial discovery are appropriate where claims may be 

dismissed ̔based on legal determinations that could not have been 

altered by any further discovery.’” Id. (quoting Muzquiz v. W.A. 

Foote Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 70 F.3d 422, 430 (6th Cir. 1995)). 

Ordinarily, “the fact that a party has filed a case-dispositive motion 

is usually deemed insufficient to support a stay of discovery.” 

Bowens v. Columbus Metro. Library Bd. of Trs., No. 2:10-cv-00219, 2010 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103399, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 16, 2010). See also 

Williams v. New Day Farms, LLC, No. 2:10-cv-0394, 2010 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 98934, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 7, 2010). In determining whether 

or not to grant a stay of discovery, however, “a court weighs the 

burden of proceeding with discovery upon the party from whom discovery 

is sought against the hardship which would be worked by a denial of 

discovery.” Bowens, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103399 at *3 (citing Ohio 

Bell Tel. Co., Inc. v. Global NAPs Ohio, Inc., No. 2:06-cv-0549, 2008 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21288, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 4, 2008)). 

 The circumstances of this case justify a stay of discovery. As 

discussed supra, the Court stayed this case pending arbitration 

Case: 2:12-cv-00170-MHW-NMK Doc #: 86 Filed: 09/03/13 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4 

between plaintiff and Triple Crown. Doc. No. 44. Arbitration has 

resulted in an award in favor of defendant Triple Crown and defendants 

Stringer and Triple Crown seek to confirm that award, Doc. No. 61. In 

moving to vacate that award, Doc. No. 64, plaintiff acknowledges that 

he faces a “high hurdle,” but he argues that discovery is necessary to 

“shed light on defendants’ pass [sic] dealings with Copyright 

Infringement and Contracts,” to “prove or disprove the applicability 

of the First Sale Doctrine,” and to disclose defendants’ fraud. 

Plaintiff’s Response, pp. 2-4. 

 Although the Court expresses no opinion as to the merits or 

ultimate resolution of defendants’ Motion to Confirm the Arbitration 

Award or of plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate the Arbitration Award, it is 

the opinion of the Court that discovery will not assist the Court in 

the resolution of those motions. The Court previously held that the 

liability of defendants Amazon.com, Ingram, and Baker & Taylor “is 

dependent on the division of rights between Triple Crown and DeBrew . 

. . . [I]f Triple Crown acted lawfully, the other defendants did as 

well.” Opinion and Order, Doc. No. 44, p. 6. The arbitrator concluded 

that plaintiff has “no legal grounds for recovery against [Triple 

Crown] based on copyright infringement or breach of contract.” 

Arbitration Award, p. 4. Thus, if the arbitration award is confirmed, 

it follows that no discovery will be necessary to determine the 

remaining defendants’ liability. In any event, should the award be 

vacated and should discovery be appropriate, the parties will be 

afforded the opportunity to conduct discovery at that time. 

Accordingly, the limited benefit, if any, to plaintiff of proceeding 

Case: 2:12-cv-00170-MHW-NMK Doc #: 86 Filed: 09/03/13 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
5 

with discovery at this time is significantly outweighed by the burden 

and expense to defendants and the Court. Defendants’ Motion to Stay 

Discovery, Doc No. 66, is therefore GRANTED. 

 Discovery is STAYED pending resolution of defendants’ Motion to 

Confirm the Arbitration Award, Doc. No. 61, plaintiff’s Motion to 

Vacate the Arbitration Award, Doc. No. 64, and of defendants’ motions 

for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff’s Response, Doc. No. 69, is titled Motion to Compel 

Discovery and Deny Defendants’ Request to Stay Discovery or Deny It. 

To the extent that the filing seeks to compel discovery pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, it is for the foregoing reasons, DENIED. 

 On April 18, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the 

complaint. Doc. No. 26. The time for responding to the motion passed 

without response before the action was stayed. If defendants intend to 

oppose the motion to amend the complaint, they shall file their 

response within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Opinion and 

Order. Plaintiff may have fourteen (14) days thereafter to reply in 

support of that motion. 

September 3, 2013 s/Norah McCann King_______ 

 Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:12-cv-00170-MHW-NMK Doc #: 86 Filed: 09/03/13 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>