The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION
GARY MONBELLY : DOCKET NO. 2:24-cv-00078
VERSUS : JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.
ALLIED UNIVERSAL
PROTECTION SERVICES, ET AL : MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the court is a Motion to Initiate Discovery [doc. 22], a Motion to Stay Discovery
[doc. 24], and a Motion to Compel Discovery [doc. 54]. As these motions are all related, they will
be resolved together. The court will analyze each in turn.
The Motion to Initiate Discovery [doc. 22] was filed by pro se plaintiff Gary Monbelly.
The time for response has passed and defendants Allied Universal Protection Services (“Allied
Universal”), Kimberly Eisenbeis, Katherine Alyea, David VanDyke, Sean Layne, Brent Phelps,
Wesley Brown, Tkeyah Martin, and Michael Savant have not filed a response, making this motion
ripe for resolution. The Motion to Stay Discovery [doc. 24] was filed by defendant Allied
Universal. Plaintiff has responded [doc. 25] and Allied Universal has replied [doc. 29], making
this motion ripe for resolution. For the reasons set forth below, both the Motion to Initiate
Discovery [doc. 22] and the Motion to Stay Discovery [doc. 24] are DENIED as MOOT.
The Motion to Compel Discovery [doc. 54] was filed by pro se plaintiff Gary Monbelly.
Defendant Allied Universal has responded [doc. 63], and Plaintiff has replied [doc. 65], making
this motion ripe for resolution. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Compel, including
Plaintiff’s request for expenses and attorney’s fees, [doc. 54] is DENIED; however, in light of the
Court’s resolution of the Motion to Initiate Discovery [doc. 22] and the Motion to Stay Discovery
[doc. 24], this denial is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to pursue discovery as set forth herein.
I.
BACKGROUND
These motions arise from an action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981,
and various state statutes. Doc. 1, ¶ 3. Plaintiff’s original complaint names Allied Universal,
Kimberly Eisenbeis, Katherine Alyea, David VanDyke, Sean Layne, Brent Phelps, Wesley Brown,
Tkeyah Martin, and Michael Savant as defendants. Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.
II.
MOTION TO INITIATE DISCOVERY AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
On July 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion styled “Motion to Initiate Discovery.” Doc. 22.
Defendant Allied Universal subsequently filed a Motion to Stay Discovery requesting a stay until
their previously filed Motion to Dismiss [doc. 10] reached resolution. Doc. 24, p. 1. On August 8,
2024, this court granted in part and denied in part the Motion to Dismiss, allowing Plaintiff time
to clarify any remaining viable claims in an amended complaint. Doc. 37, p. 19. Considering the
court’s order on the Motion to Dismiss [doc. 38], Allied Universal’s Motion to Stay Discovery
[doc. 24] is now moot.1
Because the Motion to Stay Discovery is moot, the Motion to Initiate Discovery is also
moot. Without a stay of discovery, there is nothing stopping the parties from pursuing the
1 In a response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [doc. 54], Allied Universal argues that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration [doc. 39] of the court’s ruling on the Motion to Dismiss renders the Motion to Stay Discovery
unresolved. Doc. 63, p. 4. However, defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was denied in part, this Court determining there
is a possibility of recovery on several of Plaintiff’s claims. Doc. 37, p. 19. Although Plaintiff has since moved for the
Court to reconsider its decision to dismiss certain of his claims, there is no reason to stay discovery as to the claims
that survived defendants’ efforts at dismissal. Allied Universal’s Motion to Stay acknowledged as much, stating “[i]n
the unlikely event that any part of Plaintiff’s claims manage to survive the pending motion, Plaintiff may then conduct
appropriate discovery to pursue his claims.” Doc. 24, p. 3. As there are viable claims asserted by Plaintiff at present,
the discovery process should proceed.
discovery process. Indeed, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Compel Discovery [doc. 54],
demonstrating that this process is underway. As there is nothing impeding the conduct of
discovery, the Motion to Initiate Discovery [doc. 22] likewise is moot.2
III.
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
A. Background
The instant Motion to Compel concerns written discovery requests propounded on the
defendants by Plaintiff on July 22, 2024. Doc. 54, p. 1. Plaintiff alleges the defendants’ responses
state only that they will be seeking to stay discovery until their prior Motion to Dismiss [doc. 10]
is resolved. Doc. 56, p. 1. Plaintiff now asks us to compel defendants to respond fully to Plaintiff’s
discovery requests and to award Plaintiff reasonable expenses under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37. Id. at p. 2.
Defendants oppose the motion, claiming it is moot because Allied Universal’s Motion for
Stay of Discovery [doc. 24] and Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [doc. 39] have yet to be
resolved. Doc. 63, p. 2. Defendants also argue the requested discovery relates to claims that were
dismissed by the court in its order on the Motion to Dismiss. Doc. 63, p. 2. Finally, defendants
submit that the Motion to Compel should be denied because Plaintiff failed to comply with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 37.1 by not reaching out to defense counsel about
discovery issues prior to filing the motion. Id.
In his reply, Plaintiff responds that his “live” claims require discovery. Id. Plaintiff further
asserts that his discovery requests are directly related to the claims that were not dismissed under
the Order of Dismissal [doc. 38]. Doc. 65, p. 1. Finally, Plaintiff argues his email correspondence
2 Plaintiff failed to attach to the Motion to Initiate Discovery the certificate of conference with opposing counsel as
required by Local Rule 7.4.1. Because the motion is denied on other grounds, this deficiency is of no consequence at
this time, but Plaintiff is reminded of this requirement going forward.
with defense counsel shows a good faith effort to resolve these discovery issues in compliance
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 37.1. Id.
B. Law & Analysis
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), “[p]arties may obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B) permits a party seeking discovery to move for an order compelling
disclosure of any materials requested if another party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted
under Rule 33 or to produce documents as requested under Rule 34. An evasive or incomplete
answer or response must be treated as a failure to answer or respond. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(4). The
party resisting discovery has the burden of proving that the discovery is irrelevant, overly broad,
or unduly burdensome, and thus should not be permitted. Samsung Electronics American v. Chung,
325 F.R.D. 578, 590 (N.D. Tex. 2017) (citing McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v.
Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1485 (5th Cir. 1990)). Additionally, “[t]he court may, for good cause,
issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue
burden or expense.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c).
Plaintiff served defendants with written discovery on July 22, 2024. Doc. 54, ¶1; doc. 63
at p.1. On that same date, defendants responded by filing their Motion to Stay Discovery. Doc.
24. Defendants’ position was the then-pending Motion to Dismiss had potential to be dispositive
and therefore preclude discovery altogether, and so discovery should be stayed pending resolution
of the Motion to Dismiss. Doc. 24, att. 1, p.1. Before the Motion to Stay Discovery was resolved,
the Court ruled on the Motion to Dismiss. Docs. 37, 38. Plaintiff immediately sought
reconsideration of the Court’s ruling on the Motion to Dismiss [doc. 39], and less than 30 days
after that ruling and Plaintiff’s motion seeking reconsideration, Plaintiff filed his Motion to
Compel [doc. 54].
Initially, because defendants’ immediate response to Plaintiff’s written discovery was to
move this Court to stay all discovery, and that motion remained unresolved at the time Plaintiff
filed his Motion to Compel, the Court believes any effort by Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 37(a)(1)
and Local Rule 37.1 would have been unavailing. As such, the Court relieves Plaintiff of this
obligation solely on the facts of the matters currently at bar.
That said, at the time the Motion to Compel was filed, the Motion to Stay Discovery
remained pending, and Plaintiff had asked the Court to reconsider its dismissal of certain of
Plaintiff’s claims, leaving the scope of this litigation still in flux. Accordingly, the Court finds
defendants had good cause to withhold responses to discovery as of the time the Motion to Compel
was filed. As the Motion to Stay Discovery is now moot, defendants’ argument that discovery is
not yet warranted is no longer supported. Further, although Plaintiff has moved the Court to
reconsider its decision to dismiss certain of his claims, there is no reason to stay discovery as to
the claims that survived defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Again, Allied Universal’s Motion to Stay
acknowledged as much, stating “[i]n the unlikely event that any part of Plaintiff’s claims manage
to survive the pending motion, Plaintiff may then conduct appropriate discovery to pursue his
claims.” Doc. 24, p. 3.
Accordingly, as defendants showed good cause for having not yet answered Plaintiff’s
written discovery, the instant Motion to Compel Discovery [doc. 54] should be denied. This
denial, however, is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to conduct discovery as follows. While
there is no longer good cause for further delay of discovery in this matter with respect to the claims
that have survived dismissal, the Court anticipates Plaintiff’s original discovery requests may be
directed to parties and/or claims that are no longer part of this action. To alleviate that concern,
Plaintiff should re-serve its written discovery on those defendants who remain parties to this
litigation, being sure to modify or amend such discovery requests to focus on the claims that have
survived dismissal.
Further, as the Motion to Compel is denied, so is Plaintiffs motion for expenses and
attorney’s fees.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Allied Universal’s Motion to Stay Discovery [doc. 24]
is DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Initiate Discovery [doc. 22] is
DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion
for Expenses and Attorney’s Fees [doc. 54] is DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to
Plaintiff's right to proceed with discovery as follows. Plaintiff shall re-serve his discovery requests
on those defendants who remain parties to this litigation, being sure to modify or amend such
discovery requests to focus on the claims that have survived dismissal.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers this 31st day of March, 2025.
UNITED S'RX&TES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-6-