Roehning v. United States of America

Background

Plaintiff Justin Bradley Roehning filed a complaint on April 13, 2026, naming the United States of America, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Todd Blanche, Kash Patel, and 24 unidentified "John Doe" defendants. Defendants were served by mail on April 22, 2026, and entered an appearance on May 8, 2026. Because the defendants are federal agencies and officers, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 12(a)) give them 60 days from the date of service to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint — a period that had not yet elapsed at the time of this order.

Plaintiff's counsel sent a letter requesting a hearing date on a motion to: (1) compel a Rule 26(f) conference (a required meeting between parties to plan discovery) and the associated discovery; (2) obtain expedited discovery to identify the John Doe defendants; (3) prohibit defendants from filing a motion to dismiss before the John Does were added; and (4) obtain attorney's fees and sanctions. The court noted in a footnote that plaintiff's counsel had called chambers on June 4, 2026, and was "argumentative, belligerent and unprofessional with chambers staff," and warned that future such conduct may result in sanctions against counsel.

The Court's Analysis

Rule 26(f) Conference and Scheduling Order

Magistrate Judge Foster found the demand for an immediate Rule 26(f) conference and discovery to be "plainly premature." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) generally prohibits parties from seeking discovery before they have met and conferred as required by Rule 26(f), and Rule 16(b)(2) governs when a pretrial scheduling order must be entered. Because no defendant had yet answered, ordering a Rule 26(f) conference at this stage would undermine the purpose of Rule 12(a)'s extended response period for federal government defendants. The court found good cause under Rule 16(b)(2) to delay the scheduling order until after the identified defendants have answered or otherwise responded, the parties have met and conferred, a joint Rule 26(f) report has been submitted, and a pretrial scheduling conference has occurred. The court also stated that, to the extent defendants later seek to delay discovery pending a motion to dismiss, they should file a motion to stay discovery at that time.

Expedited Discovery for John Doe Identities

The court acknowledged that expedited discovery — discovery that occurs before the normal discovery process begins — may be appropriate in cases involving unidentified "John Doe" defendants. The court applied the "good cause" standard used in the District of Minnesota, which requires a party to show that the need for expedited discovery outweighs any prejudice to the responding party. Relevant factors include: (1) whether a preliminary injunction is pending; (2) the breadth of the discovery requests; (3) the purpose for the request; (4) the burden on the defendants; and (5) how early in the process the request is made. The court permitted plaintiff to file a motion for expedited discovery limited to the identities of the John Doe defendants, with a notice of hearing date to be determined. The court will decide after reviewing the briefs whether to rule on the papers or hold a hearing.

Sanctions, Fees, and Anti-Dismissal Demand

The court declined to schedule any hearing on plaintiff's requests for fees, sanctions, or an order prohibiting defendants from filing a motion to dismiss. The court called these demands "frivolous." It noted that plaintiff's letter identified no sanctionable conduct by defendants, and that Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly permits defendants to respond to a complaint with a motion to dismiss. The court stated that if plaintiff believes dismissal is unwarranted because John Doe defendants have not yet been added, he may make that argument in opposition to any such motion.

Disposition