United States v. High Plains Livestock, LLC, CV 15-680 MCA/WPL

• Decision Date: 16 February 2016
• Docket Number: CV 15-680 MCA/WPL
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. HIGH PLAINS LIVESTOCK, LLC, d/b/a PRODUCERS LIVESTOCK AUCTION, MICHAEL FLEN, CALVIN PAREO, and DARCIE PAREO, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. HIGH PLAINS LIVESTOCK, LLC, d/b/a PRODUCERS LIVESTOCK AUCTION,MICHAEL FLEN, CALVIN PAREO, and DARCIE PAREO, Defendants.

CV 15-680 MCA/WPL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

February 16, 2016

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

The Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery pending the Court's ruling on whether the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies.¹ (Doc. 115.) The United States opposes the motion on the basis that primary jurisdiction does not apply and it is likely that the Court will find that it has subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 127.) Having reviewed the briefing, and being otherwise fully informed on the facts and the law, I find that a stay of discovery is inappropriate at this time; therefore, the motion is denied.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for a stay of proceedings. See, e.g., String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (D. Colo. 2006) (unpublished). Rule 26, however, provides that "[t]he court may, for good cause, issue anorder to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . ." FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a). Further,

[t]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.

Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936).

A complete stay of proceedings is generally disfavored. Bustos v. United States, 257 F.R.D. 617, 623 (D. Colo. 2009). However, courts have recognized that a stay may be appropriate while some dispositive motions—including issues of jurisdiction—are being resolved. See, e.g., Gilbert v. Ferry, 401 F.3d 411, 415-16 (6th Cir. 2005) (finding stay permissible pending ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).

While it appears that neither the Tenth Circuit nor the District of New Mexico has specifically addressed factors to be considered when deciding a motion to stay, other courts have considered some combination of the following factors: 1) the length of the stay requested; 2) the hardship that the movant would face in proceeding with the litigation; 3) the injury that a stay would cause the non-movant; 4) whether a stay will simplify issues and promote judicial economy; 5) whether the defendant has made a strong showing that the plaintiff's claim is unmeritorious; 6) the nature and complexity of the action; 7) the posture or stage of the litigation; 8) the interests of persons who are not parties to the litigation; 9) when the motion to stay is based on a motion alleging that the court lacks jurisdiction, whether that is an issue of subject matter or personal jurisdiction; and 10) the public interest. See Scicchitano v. Cty. of Northumberland, 2015 WL 7568357, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 2015) (factors 1-4); Hollins v. U.S. Tennis Ass'n, 469 F. Supp. 2d 67, 78 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (factors 5-7); String Cheese Incident,2006 WL 894955, at *2 (factors 7, 8, and 10, and granting the stay based on a pending motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction).

Here, the Defendants suggest that I limit any stay to some period of time and, if the Court has not ruled on subject matter jurisdiction within that time period, that I set a status conference with the parties to discuss how to proceed. To that extent, the Defendants do not request an unreasonably long stay. This factor weighs in favor of granting the stay.

Additionally, the United States will undoubtedly serve significant discovery requests on the Defendants. Indeed, the United States served nineteen interrogatories and thirty-nine requests for production on the Defendants on January 22, 2016. (See Doc. 115 at 2.) The Defendants will face significant burdens proceeding with discovery, regardless of when that discovery occurs. This factor is, therefore, neutral.

The United States does not suggest that it will suffer any particular harm if the stay is granted. The parties have requested an abnormally long period for discovery and acknowledged that this case will be document intensive. This factor weighs in favor of granting the stay.

Any stay of proceedings will not simplify or clarify issues for the Court. Indeed, the Defendants request a stay solely based on the Court's Order to Show Cause. There are no collateral or related proceedings that will clarify any of the issues. This factor weighs against granting the stay.

As to factor five, this Court has found not only that the Defendants have not shown that the United States's claim is not meritorious, but that it is likely that the United States will succeed on the merits of its case. (Doc. 89 at 4-5; Doc. 103 at 14.) This factor weighs against granting the stay.

Next, this is a complex and somewhat unusual case. As previously noted, discovery in this matter will require substantial time and resources on behalf of the United States, the Defendants, and—in all probability—third parties. A stay at this time would unnecessarily impede the progress of the case. This factor weighs against granting the stay.

Despite significant activity and briefing in this case to date, it is relatively early in the case. Full-scale discovery does not appear to have commenced. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of granting the stay.

The United States intends to serve approximately one hundred subpoenas on third parties. (See Doc. 121.) While this will be a burden on those third parties, the burden will occur eventually, whether or not there is a temporary stay. Furthermore, the more time passes between the events giving rise to the case and the third-party discovery, the harder it will be for third-parties to comply with discovery requests or subpoenas. This factor weighs against granting the stay.

The public has a significant interest in the prompt and efficient resolution of cases. In this case, actions affecting the cattle industry have significant repercussions in New Mexico and across the country. The public interest is best served by diligent prosecution and resolution of this case. This factor weighs against granting the stay.

Despite the fact that five of the foregoing nine factors weigh against granting the motion to stay, the seminal factor in my consideration of this motion is the probability that the Court will not apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. As explained below, the Court is likely to find that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not apply. Accordingly, granting a stay at this time would be an abuse of discretion and would unreasonably delay the litigation.

Contrary to the Defendants' assertions, the Court's Order to Show Cause relating to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is not an indication that the Court questions its subject matter jurisdiction. Indeed, "primary jurisdiction . . . is a doctrine specifically applicable to claims properly cognizable in court that contain some issue within the special competence of an administrative agency." Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258, 268 (1993); see also Britton Ramsey and Grapy P.C. v. McCutcheon, 200 F. App'x 760, 764 (10th Cir. 2006) (unpublished) ("The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies to claims 'properly cognizable in court,' permitting administrative referral of issues within special agency expertise while the court retains jurisdiction or dismisses the case without prejudice." (quoting Reiter, 507 U.S. at 268)); Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal R.R. Co. v. Wis. Cent. Ltd., 154 F.3d 404, 411 (7th Cir. 1998); Sunflower Elec. Co-op. v. Kan. Power & Light, 603 F.2d 791, 795 (10th Cir. 1979). Even if the Court were to determine that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies, it would not divest this Court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Further, it is likely that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not apply. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies when there is a question that demands the exercise of administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact; that question is not within the conventional experience of judges; and when a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the purposes of the regulatory statute administered. TON Servs., Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 493 F.3d 1225, 1240 (10th Cir. 2007).

Additionally, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is designed to...