Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Doe v. Miles

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

January 15, 2019

JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, JANE DOE 3, JANE DOE 4, JOHN DOE 1, and JOHN DOE 2, Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD MILES and BRENDA MILES, Defendants.

          Jill N. Parrish District Judge

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FOR LEAVE TO TAKE EARLY DEPOSITIONS

          Brooke C. Wells United States Magistrate Judge

         This matter was referred to the undersigned by District Judge Jill N. Parrish pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ⸹ 636(b)(1)(A).[1] Pending before the court is Plaintiffs' Alternative Motion for Leave to Take Early Depositions (the motion).[2] Having considered the parties' memoranda and relevant standards, the court finds the requested leave is not warranted. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

         BACKGROUND

         This action arises from allegations of abuse perpetrated through a satanic, ritualistic sex ring in Bountiful, Utah in the mid-1980s. In October 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing the Plaintiffs' claims are statutorily barred, and that subsequent amendments cannot retroactively revive the claims.[3] Currently the Utah Supreme Court is reviewing the statute of limitations issue in Mitchell v. Roberts, No. 20170447-SC (Utah S.Ct.).[4] The dispositive motion is pending before the district judge, not the undersigned. In December 2018, Plaintiff filed the “Alternative Motion for Leave to Take Early Depositions, ” currently before this court.

         DISCUSSION

         Pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(iii), “A party must obtain leave of court, and the court must grant leave to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2): (A) if the parties have not stipulated to the deposition and: . . . (iii) the party seeks to take the deposition before the time specified in Rule 26(d)[.]”[5] Rule 26(d) provides that “a party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f)[.]”[6] Here, defendants responded to the Plaintiff's Complaint with a Motion to Dismiss.[7] Thus, it appears the parties have not conferred as per Rule 26(f) since no proposed Attorney Planning Report and/or Scheduling Order appear on the record.

         Rule 26(b)(1) and (2) provide the court broad discretion in altering the standard sequence of discovery. However, the party seeking expedited discovery in advance of a Rule 26(f) conference bears the burden of showing good cause for departing from the usual discovery procedures.[8] Good cause exists “where a party seeks a preliminary injunction ... or where the moving party has asserted claims of infringement and unfair competition.”[9] Good good cause is also found “where physical evidence may be consumed or destroyed with the passage of time.”[10]

         None of these factors are at play here. Plaintiffs' only basis for requesting expedited discovery is the allegation that both Russell M. Nelson and Craig Smith “are of advanced age.” Without offering any supporting evidence, Plaintiffs offer the conclusory allegation that failure to allow the expedited discovery will risk “irrepairable prejudice by a delay.”[11] Again, there is nothing on the record to corroborate these claims. Conclusory allegations are not enough to establish “good cause.” As such, this court has no choice but to DENY Plaintiffs' motion for leave to take early depositions.

         ORDER

         For the reasons set forth above the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Short Form Discovery Motion [ECF No. 16].

---------

Notes:

[1] ECF No. 8.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.