1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

PETER BEASLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 3:22-cv-00532-M-BT

GREGORY GREENLEE et al., 

Defendants. 

 

ORDER

 

Before the Court is (1) Defendants Blacks in Technology Foundation, Blacks 

in Technology LLC, Larry Davis, Gregory Greenlee, Rondalynne McClintock, and 

Dennis Schultz’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Joint Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF 

No. 55); (2) Pro se Plaintiff Peter Beasley’s Amended Motion for Leave to File 

Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 60); (3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel 

Defendant Larry Davis (ECF No. 66); and (4) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel 

Defendant Rondalynne McClintock (ECF No. 67). The Court hereby orders as 

follows:

1. Defendants’ joint motion to stay discovery is DENIED as moot. 

Defendants requested the Court stay discovery pending a ruling on 

Defendants Blacks in Technology Foundation and Blacks in Technology LLC’s 

Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant. The Court in its Order (ECF No. 

71) denied Blacks in Technology Foundation and Blacks in Technology LLC’s 

Case 3:22-cv-00532-X-BT Document 72 Filed 12/06/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 1300
2 

Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant. Therefore, the Joint Motion to 

Stay Discovery is DENIED as moot. 

To the extent Defendants object that any discovery propounded on them by 

Plaintiff is “overly broad, irrelevant, or seek[s] to obtain privileged or confidential 

information,” Defendants may file a motion for a protective order. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(c). 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is DENIED.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that “a party may amend its 

pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it, or if the pleading 

is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a 

responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or 

(f), whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Thereafter, “a party may amend 

its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court's leave.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). While district courts “should freely give leave [to amend] 

when justice so requires,” they have discretion to grant or deny such a motion “and 

may consider a variety of factors including undue delay, bad faith or dilatory 

motive on the part of the movant, repeated failures to cure deficiencies by 

amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party . . ., and 

futility of the amendment.” Marucci Sports, L.L.C. v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic 

Ass’n, 751 F.3d 368, 378 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal citation and quotation marks 

omitted). An amendment is futile if it would fail to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. 

See Briggs v. Mississippi, 331 F.3d 499, 508 (5th Cir. 2003).

Case 3:22-cv-00532-X-BT Document 72 Filed 12/06/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 1301
3 

Here, Plaintiff already, as a matter of course, filed an Amended Complaint. 

(See ECF No. 5). He also filed a “first” Motion for Leave to Amend with a proposed 

amended complaint, which he withdrew and replaced with the pending “second” 

Motion for Leave to Amend and a different proposed amended complaint. 

Compare Proposed Amend. Second Amend. Comp. (ECF No. 52-1); and Proposed 

Amend. Proposed Second Amend. Compl. (ECF No. 60-2); See also Comparison of 

Proposed Compl. Changes (ECF No. 60-1). But the Court denies his request for 

leave to file the proposed amended complaint because—for the reasons set forth in 

Defendants’ Joint Response to Plaintiff’s First Amended Motion for Leave to 

Amend Complaint (See ECF No. 63)—his proposed amendment would be futile.

3. Plaintiff’s motions to compel are DENIED without prejudice.

Before filing a motion, the moving party “must confer with an attorney for 

each party affected by the requested relief to determine whether the motion is 

opposed.” Local Rule 7.1(a). “Each motion for which a conference is required must 

include a certificate of conference indicating that the motion is unopposed or 

opposed. If a motion is opposed, the certificate must state that a conference was 

held, indicate the date of conference and the identities of the attorneys conferring, 

and explain why agreement could not be reached.” Id at (b)(1)-(2). 

Here, Plaintiff’s certificate of conference does not meet the standards set out 

by this Court’s Local Rules. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Defendant 

Larry Davis and Defendant Rondalynne McClintock are denied without prejudice. 

If Plaintiff intends to depose any Defendant, he must confer with defense counsel

Case 3:22-cv-00532-X-BT Document 72 Filed 12/06/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 1302
4

prior to noticing any depositions. At the request of any party, the Court will make 

a conference room in its chambers available for the requested depositions.

SO ORDERED.

December 6, 2022.

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00532-X-BT Document 72 Filed 12/06/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 1303