Lemmon v. Pierce County

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 7, 2021
• Docket: 3:21-cv-05390
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 EDDIE LEE LEMMON, 8 NO. C21-5390RSL Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 10 STAY PIERCE COUNTY, 11 Defendant. 12 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on defendant Pierce County’s “Motion for Relief 15 from Deadlines and Protection Order Staying Discovery.” Dkt. # 13. Having reviewed the 16 17 memoranda and declarations submitted by the parties, as well as the underlying motion to 18 dismiss, the Court finds as follows: 19 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure impose clear duties to disclose that are triggered by 20 certain, specified events. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) and 26(d)(1). The rules do not provide an 21 automatic stay of discovery if a motion to dismiss is filed: such motions are often unsuccessful 22 23 and a stay could cause unnecessary and significant delays at the outset of the litigation. The 24 Court nevertheless has discretion to stay discovery if defendant shows that it is entitled to a 25 protective order under Rule 26(c) “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, 26 oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . .” See Lazar v. Kroncke, 862 F.3d 1186, 1203 (9th 27 1 Cir. 2017) (“District court[] orders controlling discovery are reviewed for an abuse of 2 discretion.”). 3 The pending motion to dismiss asserts that (a) plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the 4 fees and fines that were assessed against him when his legal financial obligations were referred 5 to a private company for collection, (b) the claims are not ripe and/or are an impermissible 6 7 collateral attack on the Superior Court’s judgment, (c) the State, rather than the County, is the 8 correct defendant or, in the alternative, the County cannot be held liable for the conduct of its 9 judicial officers or other employees, (d) plaintiff has not adequately alleged the deprivation of 10 any constitutional right, and (e) declaratory and injunctive relief are unavailable. The mere 11 existence of a motion to dismiss is insufficient on its own to warrant a stay of discovery, and the 12 Court is not “convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief.” Wenger v. 13 14 Monroe, 282 F.3d 1068, 1077 (9th Cir. 2002). The arguments that could resolve the entire case 15 do not, upon first glance, appear to be persuasive, and success on discrete issues would not 16 obviate the need for discovery. Defendant does not argue that discovery related to the procedures 17 and policies governing the referrals of legal financial obligations to private corporations for 18 collection would be unduly burdensome, oppressive, or embarrassing. It has not, therefore, met 19 20 its burden for a protective order under Rule 26(c). 21 22 For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for a stay of discovery is DENIED. 23 24 Dated this 7th day of July, 2021. 25 Robert S. Lasnik 26 United States District Judge 27