Tikhonova v. Southeastern Gymnastics

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:24-CV-00280-FDW-SCR MARINA TIKHONOVA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) SOUTHEASTERN GYMNASTICS and ) MICHAEL TRESKE, ) ) Defendants. ) )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Southeastern Gymnastics, Inc.’s Motion to Bifurcate Discovery, (Doc. No. 26). Defendant requests that the Court bifurcate discovery into two phases. (Doc. No. 26, p. 1.) The first phase of discovery, which Defendant contends is complete, would pertain solely to the “threshold” issue of whether Defendant employs twenty or more individuals. (Doc. No. 26-1, p. 2.) The second phase of discovery would pertain to the merits of the case. (Id.) Additionally, Defendant seeks an order stating that the first phase of discovery is complete and its Motion for Summary Judgment on the 20-employee issue has been fully briefed and is ripe for ruling. (Id.) Courts enjoy “broad discretion to bifurcate discovery.” Abdur-Rahman v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., 3:21-cv-00207-RJC, 2022 WL 2117167, at *2 (W.D.N.C. May 4, 2022) (quoting Cardenas v. Resort Sales by Spinnaker, Inc., No. 9:20-cv-00376-RMG, 2021 WL 733393, at *1 (D.S.C. Feb. 24, 2021)). Moreover, bifurcated discovery “is the exception, rather than rule, and it is clear that in most instances, regular—that is, unbifurcated—discovery is more efficient.” Id. (quoting Cardenas, 2021 WL 733393, at *1). Here, the Court finds that bifurcated discovery is inappropriate. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate Discovery, (Doc. No. 26), is DENIED. IT ISSO ORDERED. Signed: January 13, 2025

Frank D. Whitney ww Senior United States District Judge ~