Jones v. Navy Federal Credit Union

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION GEORGE T. JONES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV423-338 ) NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT ) UNION, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER Defendant Navy Federal Credit Union (“Navy Federal”) moved to dismiss pro se plaintiff George T. Jones’ Complaint. See doc. 10. Jones moved for discovery. Doc. 11. Navy Federal responded in opposition to that Motion, doc. 15, and moves to stay discovery pending its Motion to Dismiss, doc. 14. Navy Federal has also asserted that Jones has not responded to its Motion to Dismiss. Doc. 13. However, that assertion is incorrect. Although Jones’ filing is titled “Motion for Discovery,” it is explicitly presented “[i]n response to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss,” doc. 11 at 1, and appears intended to make substantive arguments against dismissal, id. at 2-5. Given the liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings, the Court construes the document Jones filed as his response to the Motion to Dismiss. See, e.g., Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed... .”).

Since Navy Federal has responded to Jones’ Motion, it is ripe for disposition. Since, as Defendant’s response points out, it appears that any request for discovery is premature and the parties have conducted the conference required under Rule 26(f), see doc. 15 at 2-3 (citing, inter alia., Futch v. FedEx Ground, 2023 WL 5049318, at *5 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 8, 2023) (dismissing discovery motions filed before the Rule 26(f) report as premature)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1), Jones’ Motion is DENIED.

Doc. 11. Whether and when discovery may be conducted will depend upon the content of the parties’ Rule 26(f) report and the disposition of Navy Federal’s Motion to Stay, doc. 14, to which Jones has not yet responded.

SO ORDERED, this 8th day of April, 2024.

Aibigho~A lie CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA