UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMES MCASSEY, : CIVIL NO. 4:16-CV-705 

:

Plaintiff, : (Judge Kane)

:

v. :

 : (Magistrate Judge Carlson)

DISCOVERY MACHINE, INC., et al., :

 :

Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM ORDER

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

This workplace discrimination lawsuit was recently transferred to this court,

and referred to the undersigned. At the time of this case transfer there was a motion

to dismiss pending, and unresolved, in the case. (Doc. 13.) There are now two more

motions filed in this matter, which relate to this motion to dismiss: (1) a motion to

compel discovery filed by the plaintiff (Doc. 24); and (2) a motion to stay discovery

pending resolution of the motion to dismiss, filed by the defendants. (Doc. 28.) 

Given this constellation of pleadings, for the reasons set forth below we will:

(1) STAY further discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss filed in this

case; and (2) DENY the motion to compel without prejudice to renewal of that

motion, if necessary, following resolution of the motion to dismiss.

Several basic guiding principles inform our resolution of the instant discovery

Case 4:16-cv-00705-JPW-MCC Document 35 Filed 06/13/16 Page 1 of 6
issues. At the outset, the scope of discovery is defined by Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides as follows:

(1) Scope in General. Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope

of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any

nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense –

including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and

location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and

location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good

cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject

matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be

admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead

to the discovery of admissible evidence. All discovery is subject to the

limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)( C ).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

 Rulings regarding the proper scope of discovery, and the extent to which

discovery may be compelled, are matters consigned to the court’s discretion and

judgment. Thus, it has long been held that decisions regarding Rule 37 motions are

“committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” DiGregorio v. First

Rediscount Corp., 506 F.2d 781, 788 (3d Cir. 1974). Similarly, issues relating to the

scope of discovery permitted under Rule 26 also rest in the sound discretion of the

Court. Wisniewski v. Johns-Manville Corp., 812 F.2d 81, 90 (3d Cir. 1987). Thus,

a court’s decisions regarding the conduct of discovery, and whether to compel

disclosure of certain information, will be disturbed only upon a showing of an abuse

of discretion. Marroquin-Manriquez v. I.N.S., 699 F.2d 129, 134 (3d Cir. 1983).This

2

Case 4:16-cv-00705-JPW-MCC Document 35 Filed 06/13/16 Page 2 of 6
far-reaching discretion extends to rulings by United States Magistrate Judges on

discovery matters. In this regard:

District courts provide magistrate judges with particularly broad

discretion in resolving discovery disputes. See Farmers & Merchs. Nat'l

Bank v. San Clemente Fin. Group Sec., Inc., 174 F.R.D. 572, 585

(D.N.J.1997). When a magistrate judge's decision involves a

discretionary [discovery] matter . . . , “courts in this district have

determined that the clearly erroneous standard implicitly becomes an

abuse of discretion standard.” Saldi v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 224

F.R.D. 169, 174 (E.D.Pa.2004) (citing Scott Paper Co. v. United States,

943 F.Supp. 501, 502 (E.D.Pa.1996)). Under that standard, a magistrate

judge's discovery ruling “is entitled to great deference and is reversible

only for abuse of discretion.” Kresefky v. Panasonic Commc'ns and Sys.

Co., 169 F.R.D. 54, 64 (D.N.J.1996); see also Hasbrouck v.

BankAmerica Hous. Servs., 190 F.R.D. 42, 44-45 (N.D.N.Y.1999)

(holding that discovery rulings are reviewed under abuse of discretion

standard rather than de novo standard); EEOC v. Mr. Gold, Inc., 223

F.R.D. 100, 102 (E.D.N.Y.2004) (holding that a magistrate judge's

resolution of discovery disputes deserves substantial deference and

should be reversed only if there is an abuse of discretion).

Halsey v. Pfeiffer, No. 09-1138, 2010 WL 3735702, *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 17, 2010).

We also note that our broad discretion over discovery matters extends to

decisions under Rule 26(c) relating to the issuance of protective orders limiting and

regulating the timing of discovery. Indeed, it is undisputed that: “ ‘[t]he grant and

nature of [a protective order] is singularly within the discretion of the district court

and may be reversed only on a clear showing of abuse of discretion.’ Galella v.

Onassis, 487 F.2d 986, 997 (2d Cir.1973) (citation omitted).” Dove v. Atlantic Capital

3

Case 4:16-cv-00705-JPW-MCC Document 35 Filed 06/13/16 Page 3 of 6
Corp., 963 F.2d 15, 19 (2d Cir. 1992). This discretion is guided, however, by certain

basic principles. One of these cardinal principles, governing the exercise of discretion

in this field, is that the district court may properly defer or delay discovery while it

considers a potentially dispositive pretrial motion, provided the district court

concludes that the pretrial motion does not, on its face, appear groundless. See, e.g.,

James v. York County Police Dep’t, 160 F.App’x 126, 136 (3d Cir. 2005); Nolan v.

U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 973 F.2d 843,849 (10th Cir. 1992); Johnson v. New York Univ.

Sch. of Ed., 205 F.R.D. 433, 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Briefly deferring discovery in such

a case, while the court determines the threshold issue of whether a complaint has

sufficient merit to go forward, recognizes a simple, fundamental truth: Parties who file

motions which may present potentially meritorious and complete legal defenses to

civil actions should not be put to the time, expense and burden of factual discovery

until after these claimed legal defenses are addressed by the court. In such instances,

it is clearly established that:

“[A] stay of discovery is appropriate pending resolution of a potentially

dispositive motion where the motion ‘appear[s] to have substantial

grounds' or, stated another way, ‘do[es] not appear to be without

foundation in law.’ ” In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation,

2002 WL 88278, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2002) (quoting Chrysler

Capital Corp. v. Century Power Corp., 137 F.R.D. 209, 209-10

(S.D.N.Y.1991)) ( citing Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp., 203

F.R.D. 92, 2001 WL 396422, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2001); AntiMonopoly, Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc., 1996 WL 101277, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.

March 7, 1996)). 

4

Case 4:16-cv-00705-JPW-MCC Document 35 Filed 06/13/16 Page 4 of 6
Johnson v. New York Univ. School of Educ., 205 F.R.D. 433, 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).

Guided by these legal tenets we conclude that further discovery should be

briefly stayed at this time until after the court resolves the pending motion to dismiss.

We reach this conclusion in accordance with settled case law, finding that: “[A] stay

of discovery is appropriate pending resolution of a potentially dispositive motion

where the motion ‘appear[s] to have substantial grounds' or, stated another way,

‘do[es] not appear to be without foundation in law.’” Johnson v. New York Univ.

School of Educ., 205 F.R.D. 433, 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). 

An appropriate order follows:

Order

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons:

1. The plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 24), is DENIED without

prejudice to renewal of that motion, if necessary, following resolution of

the motion to dismiss.

2. The Motion to Stay (Doc. 28), is GRANTED and further discovery is

STAYED pending the resolution of any dispositive motions.

So ordered this 13th day of June, 2016.

5

Case 4:16-cv-00705-JPW-MCC Document 35 Filed 06/13/16 Page 5 of 6
S/Martin C. Carlson 

Martin C. Carlson

United States Magistrate Judge

6

Case 4:16-cv-00705-JPW-MCC Document 35 Filed 06/13/16 Page 6 of 6