1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DWAYNE SCICCHITANO, : Civ. No. 4:15-CV-00852

PAMELA BOLLINGER, ROBERT :

MCANDREW, DAVID :

YAKOBOSKI, BARRY :

SCHWEITZER, JAMES BRESSI, :

and ALBERT BENEDICT :

: (Judge Brann)

:

Plaintiffs, :

:

:

v. :

:

COUNTY OF :

NORTHUMBERLAND, VINNY :

CLAUSI, and STEPHEN BRIDY, :

:

Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM

November 25, 2015

Pending before this Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of this 

Court’s Order1granting Defendants’ motion to stay discovery.2 The motion has 

been fully briefed and is now ripe for disposition. In accordance with the 

following reasoning, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration is denied. 

 

1 ECF No. 58.

2 ECF NO. 57.

Case 4:15-cv-00852-MWB Document 64 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 6
2

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint3on May 8, 2015, together with a 

motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.4The motion 

for a preliminary injunction was granted by this Court after a hearing conducted on 

June 4 and 5, 2015.5The Court subsequently entered an Order setting a discovery 

deadline of April 1, 2016 and a date for trial in January 2017.6

On November 3, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery.7In the 

body of their motion, Defendants indicated that Defendants Vinny Clausi and 

Stephen Bridy did not run for re-election as Northumberland County 

Commissioners; as a result, two new commissioners would be elected in the 

November 2015 General Election.

8

They requested that the Court stay discovery 

for a period of ninety days. On November 4, 2015, this Court entered an Order 

granting Defendants’ motion. This Court signed the proposed Order submitted with 

Defendants’ brief which ordered all discovery “stayed pending further Order of the 

Court.”

 

3 ECF No. 4.

4 ECF No. 5.

5 ECF No. 33.

6 ECF No. 49.

7 ECF No. 57.

8

Id.

Case 4:15-cv-00852-MWB Document 64 Filed 11/25/15 Page 2 of 6
3

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of 

law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”9 A court should grant a 

motion for reconsideration if the party seeking reconsideration shows: “(1) an 

intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that 

was not available when the court granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3) 

the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.”10 

“The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is a stringent one . . . 

. [A] mere disagreement with the court does not translate into a clear error of 

law.”11 “Because federal courts have a strong interest in the finality of judgments, 

motions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly.”12 

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs contend that their motion for reconsideration should be granted to 

correct a clear error of law to prevent manifest injustice.13 They argue that the 

Court erred in granting Defendants’ motion to stay discovery because the Court

failed to apply the applicable legal standard and exceeded its discretion in ordering 

 

9 Harsco v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985).

10 Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).

11 Mpala v. Smith, CIV. 3:CV-06-841, 2007 WL 136750, *2 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2007) (Kosik, J.) aff'd, 241 F. App'x 

3 (3d Cir. 2007). 

12 Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc., 884 F. Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995).

13 ECF No. 61 at 2.

Case 4:15-cv-00852-MWB Document 64 Filed 11/25/15 Page 3 of 6
4

an indefinite stay based upon an insufficient showing by Defendants.14 Defendants, 

in their response to Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, argue that the Court did 

not err because rulings on requests for stays are within “the sound discretion of the 

district court.”15 

In determining whether to grant a motion to stay, this Court must consider 

four factors: (1) the length of the requested stay; (2) the hardship that the moving 

party would face in going forward with the litigation; (3) the injury that a stay 

would cause the non-moving party; (4) and whether a stay will simplify issues and 

promote judicial economy.16 Stays of indefinite duration, however, are discouraged 

and may “constitute an abuse of discretion.”17 The United States Court of Appeals 

for the Third Circuit has further warned that “efficiency does not, by itself, allow a 

federal court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favor of proceedings in an 

alternative forum.”18

In their motion to stay discovery, Defendants requested a stay of ninety days 

to allow the newly elected Northumberland County Board of Commissioners “an 

opportunity to decide on the future of the Weatherization Department,”

19 which, of 

course, is the heart of this case. This was particularly significant considering that 

 

14 Id.

15 ECF No. 63, citing Miller v. Ashcroft, 76 F. App’x 457, 461 (3d Cir. 2003).

16 Structural Group, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4616843, *4 (M.D. Pa. October 16, 2008)(citing Landis 

v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)).

17 CTF Hotel Holdings, Inc. v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 381 F.3d 131, 135 (3d Cir. 2004).

18 Id. at 135.

19 ECF No. 57 at 1.

Case 4:15-cv-00852-MWB Document 64 Filed 11/25/15 Page 4 of 6
5

two of the defendants in this case, Vinny Clausi and Stephen Bridy, current

commissioners, chose not to seek re-election and that “all of the candidates for the 

Commissioner position ha[d] expressed a commitment to the continuation of the 

Weatherization Department.”20 Ninety days would, therefore, provide the new 

Board of Commissioners a reasonable opportunity to decide on that department’s 

future.

Plaintiffs argue that their remedies include compensatory and punitive 

damages and that their claims include emotional and mental harm, the cost of 

medical care related to the emotional and mental harm allegedly suffered, and 

wage losses for at least one Plaintiff.21 Plaintiffs contend that a “stay of discovery 

would merely delay the proceedings.”22 Plaintiffs further argue that they have 

scheduled depositions of several fact witnesses and that “any further delay will 

impact Plaintiffs’ ability to obtain information from these witnesses.”23 This seems 

considerably overstated.

After considering the factors above, this Court will not reconsider its 

decision to grant Defendants’ motion to stay discovery. A ninety-day stay of 

discovery to allow time for the new Commissioners to determine the future of the 

Weatherization Department may render all of the issues in this case moot. At the 

 

20 ECF No. 57.

21 ECF No. 61.

22 Id. at 4.

23 Id.

Case 4:15-cv-00852-MWB Document 64 Filed 11/25/15 Page 5 of 6
6

very least, the stay may assist in simplifying the issues before the Court, thereby 

promoting judicial economy. 

The Weatherization Department has apparently continued to operate and 

Plaintiffs continue to be gainfully employed. Granting a ninety-day stay of 

discovery will not impact any alleged damages Plaintiffs have already claimed. 

There is no reason discernable by this Court why Plaintiffs or Defendants should 

continue to expend time, effort, and attorney’s fees on discovery at this juncture.

IV. CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing reasoning, Plaintiffs’ motion for 

reconsideration is denied. This Court’s previous Order,24 however, is vacated as it 

failed to state the ninety-day stay duration requested in Defendants’ motion to stay 

discovery.25 An appropriate and curative Order follows.

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge 

 

24 ECF No. 58.

25 ECF No. 57.

Case 4:15-cv-00852-MWB Document 64 Filed 11/25/15 Page 6 of 6