UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


Jan H. Lovlie,                    Case No. 24-CV-1502 (SRN/ECW)          

          Plaintiff,                                                     

v.                                ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY                

United States of America, et al.,                                        

          Defendants.                                                    


Jan H. Lovlie, 5021 Vernon Ave. S., Ste. 175, Edina, MN 55436, Pro Se Plaintiff 

Ryan Franke, DOJ-Tax Division, 1275 First St. NE, Washington, DC 20002, for Defendant 
United States of America                                                  

M. Gregory Simpson and Megan K. Seavey, Meagher & Geer, P.L.L.P., 33 S. 6th St., Ste. 
4300, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Defendant Manly A. Zimmerman             
________________________________________________________________________  
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge                        
    This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Stay Discovery [Doc. No. 28] filed 
by Defendant United States of America and the Motion to Compel Discovery filed by 
Plaintiff Jan H. Lovlie [Doc. No. 37].                                    
    The  Government  moves  for  a  stay  of  discovery  under  Federal  Rule  of  Civil 
Procedure 26(c) in light of its pending Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 16].1  The Government 
maintains that Mr. Lovlie’s lawsuit involves issues that were previously litigated in United 

1 Also pending before the Court is the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by 
Defendant Manly A. Zimmerman [Doc. No. 23].                               
States v. Lovlie, 07-cv-3136 (PAM/JSM) (D. Minn.) (“Lovlie I”), a tax assessment action 
initiated by the IRS in 2007.  In the Government’s Motion to Stay, it argues that the instant 

action is barred by res judicata, therefore, discovery will be unnecessary in light of the 
resolution of its pending dispositive motion.  (Gov’t’s Mem. in Supp. Mot. to Stay [Doc. 
No. 30] at 4.)                                                            
    After the Government filed its Motion to Stay, Mr. Lovlie filed the instant Moton 
to Compel, requesting discovery related to his tax liabilities from 1990 through 1997.  (Pl.’s 
Mot. to Compel at 1–2.)  Mr. Lovlie’s tax liabilities for this period were at issue in Lovlie 

I.  (Lovlie I, Compl. [Doc. No. 1] ¶¶ 11, 16.)                            
    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) permits a Court to enter a protective order to 
“protect a party . . . from . . . oppression, or undue burden or expense” in various ways 
related  to  discovery,  if  the  movant  has  demonstrated  good  cause.    Fed.  R.  Civ.  P. 
26(c)(1)(A), (B), (C), (D).  Courts are to make such determinations on a case-by-case basis, 

as the inquiry is dependent “on the particular circumstances and posture of each case.”  
Zutz v. Nelson, No. 08-cv-958 (JNE/RLE), 

, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 12, 
2009) (citation omitted).  In making this determination, a court must balance the harm 
caused by a delay in discovery against the possibility that the dispositive motion may 
obviate the need for any such discovery.  

  (citation omitted).        

    While the pendency of a dispositive motion, standing alone, may be insufficient to 
grant relief, 

 the court in Zutz found that two of the defendant-movants had demonstrated 
good cause for a stay of discovery.  Similar to the facts here, two of the Zutz defendants, 
Nelson and Stroble, had argued in their pending motion for judgment on the pleadings that 
the plaintiff’s claims against them were barred by res judicata.  

 at *3–
4.  The court granted their motion for a stay and explained, “[A]ny delay in discovery is 

substantially outweighed by the possibility that the District Court’s ruling on Nelson and 
Stroble’s dispositive Motion will either obviate the need for further discovery, or further 
define the areas for which discovery will be necessary.”  Id. at *4.      
    Good cause also exists here as to the Government, which asserts res judicata in its 
Motion to Dismiss, and as to Mr. Zimmerman, who seeks dismissal on two bases, including  
the statute of limitations.2  The Court is capable of ruling on these legal issues while 

discovery is stayed.  Any harm caused by a delay in discovery is outweighed by the 
possibility that the Court’s ruling on the pending dispositive motions will eliminate the 
need for further discovery, along with the accompanying burden and expense.  Moreover, 
this case was only filed on April 24, 2024, and a discovery delay at this early juncture will 
not significantly prejudice Mr. Lovlie.                                   

    Accordingly, the Court grants the Government’s motion and stays all discovery in 
this matter until the Court rules on the pending dispositive motions.  If the Court grants the 
dispositive motions, discovery will be moot.  In light of this ruling, the Court also denies 
without prejudice Mr. Lovlie’s Motion to Compel Discovery.                




2 While Mr. Zimmerman’s primary argument is based on the statute of limitations, he also 
argues that the Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.  (Zimmerman 
Mem. Supp. Mot. for J. on the Pleadings [Doc. No. 26] at 8–14.)           
    Based  on  the  submissions  and  the  entire  file  and  proceedings  herein,  IT  IS 
HEREBY ORDERED THAT                                                       

    1.   The Motion to Stay Discovery [Doc. No. 28] filed by the United States is 
GRANTED.  All discovery in this matter is stayed pending resolution of the Defendants’ 
pending dispositive motions [Doc. Nos. 16 & 23].                          
    2.   Plaintiff’s  Motion  to  Compel  [Doc.  No.  37]  is  DENIED  WITHOUT 
PREJUDICE.                                                                



Dated: September 6, 2024             s/Susan Richard Nelson               
                                    SUSAN RICHARD NELSON                 
                                    United States District Judge         

                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


Jan H. Lovlie,                    Case No. 24-CV-1502 (SRN/ECW)          

          Plaintiff,                                                     

v.                                ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY                

United States of America, et al.,                                        

          Defendants.                                                    


Jan H. Lovlie, 5021 Vernon Ave. S., Ste. 175, Edina, MN 55436, Pro Se Plaintiff 

Ryan Franke, DOJ-Tax Division, 1275 First St. NE, Washington, DC 20002, for Defendant 
United States of America                                                  

M. Gregory Simpson and Megan K. Seavey, Meagher & Geer, P.L.L.P., 33 S. 6th St., Ste. 
4300, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Defendant Manly A. Zimmerman             
________________________________________________________________________  
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge                        
    This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Stay Discovery [Doc. No. 28] filed 
by Defendant United States of America and the Motion to Compel Discovery filed by 
Plaintiff Jan H. Lovlie [Doc. No. 37].                                    
    The  Government  moves  for  a  stay  of  discovery  under  Federal  Rule  of  Civil 
Procedure 26(c) in light of its pending Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 16].1  The Government 
maintains that Mr. Lovlie’s lawsuit involves issues that were previously litigated in United 

1 Also pending before the Court is the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by 
Defendant Manly A. Zimmerman [Doc. No. 23].                               
States v. Lovlie, 07-cv-3136 (PAM/JSM) (D. Minn.) (“Lovlie I”), a tax assessment action 
initiated by the IRS in 2007.  In the Government’s Motion to Stay, it argues that the instant 

action is barred by res judicata, therefore, discovery will be unnecessary in light of the 
resolution of its pending dispositive motion.  (Gov’t’s Mem. in Supp. Mot. to Stay [Doc. 
No. 30] at 4.)                                                            
    After the Government filed its Motion to Stay, Mr. Lovlie filed the instant Moton 
to Compel, requesting discovery related to his tax liabilities from 1990 through 1997.  (Pl.’s 
Mot. to Compel at 1–2.)  Mr. Lovlie’s tax liabilities for this period were at issue in Lovlie 

I.  (Lovlie I, Compl. [Doc. No. 1] ¶¶ 11, 16.)                            
    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) permits a Court to enter a protective order to 
“protect a party . . . from . . . oppression, or undue burden or expense” in various ways 
related  to  discovery,  if  the  movant  has  demonstrated  good  cause.    Fed.  R.  Civ.  P. 
26(c)(1)(A), (B), (C), (D).  Courts are to make such determinations on a case-by-case basis, 

as the inquiry is dependent “on the particular circumstances and posture of each case.”  
Zutz v. Nelson, No. 08-cv-958 (JNE/RLE), 

, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 12, 
2009) (citation omitted).  In making this determination, a court must balance the harm 
caused by a delay in discovery against the possibility that the dispositive motion may 
obviate the need for any such discovery.  

  (citation omitted).        

    While the pendency of a dispositive motion, standing alone, may be insufficient to 
grant relief, 

 the court in Zutz found that two of the defendant-movants had demonstrated 
good cause for a stay of discovery.  Similar to the facts here, two of the Zutz defendants, 
Nelson and Stroble, had argued in their pending motion for judgment on the pleadings that 
the plaintiff’s claims against them were barred by res judicata.  

 at *3–
4.  The court granted their motion for a stay and explained, “[A]ny delay in discovery is 

substantially outweighed by the possibility that the District Court’s ruling on Nelson and 
Stroble’s dispositive Motion will either obviate the need for further discovery, or further 
define the areas for which discovery will be necessary.”  Id. at *4.      
    Good cause also exists here as to the Government, which asserts res judicata in its 
Motion to Dismiss, and as to Mr. Zimmerman, who seeks dismissal on two bases, including  
the statute of limitations.2  The Court is capable of ruling on these legal issues while 

discovery is stayed.  Any harm caused by a delay in discovery is outweighed by the 
possibility that the Court’s ruling on the pending dispositive motions will eliminate the 
need for further discovery, along with the accompanying burden and expense.  Moreover, 
this case was only filed on April 24, 2024, and a discovery delay at this early juncture will 
not significantly prejudice Mr. Lovlie.                                   

    Accordingly, the Court grants the Government’s motion and stays all discovery in 
this matter until the Court rules on the pending dispositive motions.  If the Court grants the 
dispositive motions, discovery will be moot.  In light of this ruling, the Court also denies 
without prejudice Mr. Lovlie’s Motion to Compel Discovery.                




2 While Mr. Zimmerman’s primary argument is based on the statute of limitations, he also 
argues that the Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.  (Zimmerman 
Mem. Supp. Mot. for J. on the Pleadings [Doc. No. 26] at 8–14.)           
    Based  on  the  submissions  and  the  entire  file  and  proceedings  herein,  IT  IS 
HEREBY ORDERED THAT                                                       

    1.   The Motion to Stay Discovery [Doc. No. 28] filed by the United States is 
GRANTED.  All discovery in this matter is stayed pending resolution of the Defendants’ 
pending dispositive motions [Doc. Nos. 16 & 23].                          
    2.   Plaintiff’s  Motion  to  Compel  [Doc.  No.  37]  is  DENIED  WITHOUT 
PREJUDICE.                                                                



Dated: September 6, 2024             s/Susan Richard Nelson               
                                    SUSAN RICHARD NELSON                 
                                    United States District Judge