Price v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company et al

-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MICHEAL PRICE, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
V. 	§ 	No. 3:25-cv-3231-S-BN
§
TRANSAMERICA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.,
§
§
§
Defendants. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
1. 	Preliminary Matters
In response to an order from this Court, see Dkt. No. 16, the parties have filed
a Joint Status Report proposing deadlines for a scheduling order. See Dkt. No. 18.
In the Joint Status Report, Defendant Transamerica Life Insurance Company
asks the Court to stay discovery until the disposition of “its forthcoming motion for
judgment on the pleadings” where “TLIC contests personal jurisdiction.” Id. at 2.
TLIC explains that it “believes [this is] the most efficient course.” Id. at 2-3. “In the
alternative, TLIC proposes conducting discovery in two phases: (1) individual and (2)
class.” Id. at 3. In TLIC’s view, “[i]f the case proceeds following a ruling on TLIC’s
motion, TLIC proposes conducting discovery on Plaintiff’s individual claim followed
by dispositive motions on Plaintiff’s individual claim. TLIC proposes that if the case
proceeds following a ruling on dispositive motions, class discovery should then
commence followed by class certification briefing.” Id. at 5.
Plaintiff Micheal Price contends that “discovery should proceed immediately,
Case 3:25-cv-03231-S-BN Document 19 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 14 PageID <pageID>

-2-
as discovery is necessary to address disputed factual issues including authorization,
ratification, licensing, post-notice conduct, and third-party vendor involvement, all of
which are uniquely within Defendant’s possession,” and Price “believes discovery is
necessary 	to 	address 	the 	fact-intensive 	issues 	of 	agency, 	authorization, 	and
ratification that are central to the case.” Id. at 6.
The United States Court of Appeals for “the Fifth Circuit has recognized that
federal district courts have broad discretion and inherent power to stay discovery
until preliminary questions that may dispose of the case are determined.” Colonna v.
LoanDepot.com LLC, No. 3:24-cv-376-X, 2024 WL 5047875, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 9,
2024) (cleaned up).
“In the context of a motion to dismiss, a district court has discretion to stay
discovery if the disposition of the motion might preclude the need for discovery
altogether.” Primesource Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Lee Grp. Int’l, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-2878-X,
2020 WL 6140462, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2020) (cleaned up). “Such a stay is not,
however, automatically granted whenever a motion to dismiss is pending.” Sedillo as
trustee of Filo & Fran Sedillo Revocable Tr. v. Team Techs., Inc., No. 3:20-cv-1628-D,
2020 WL 5411697, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2020). And “[c]ourts in the Fifth Circuit
routinely decline to stay discovery pending the resolution of another motion because
this alone falls short of demonstrating good cause.” X Corp. v. Media Matters for Am.,
No. 4:23-cv-1175-O, 2024 WL 1895255, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2024) (cleaned up).
“When deciding to issue a stay, some of the relevant factors that inform a
court’s discretion are [1] the breadth of discovery sought, [2] the burden of responding
Case 3:25-cv-03231-S-BN Document 19 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 14 PageID <pageID>

-3-
to such discovery, and [3] the strength of the dispositive motion filed by the party
seeking a stay.” Primesource, 2020 WL 6140462, at *1 (cleaned up).
Here, TLIC offers no briefing or details regarding the scope or breadth of any
anticipated discovery or the burden that it would face in responding to it. Rather, it
relies on its anticipated filing of a dispositive motion asserting lack of personal
jurisdiction.
As to the third factor, courts have found that “the strength of the motion to
dismiss” weighs in favor of a stay where, “upon a cursory examination,” the movant’s
“arguments are not frivolous and merit serious consideration” and where, “if the
arguments are valid, then the case will be completely disposed of.” Primesource, 2020
WL 6140462, at *2.
But TLIC hasn’t yet filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) motion that
the Court can even cursorily review. The Court cannot here “ignor[e] the problematic
nature of attempting to evaluate the strength of an anticipated motion.” Naranjo v.
Nick’s Mgmt., Inc., No. 3:21-cv-2883-B, 2022 WL 3574692, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 6,
2022). And, so, TLIC has not “shown a strong likelihood that [its] anticipated motion
[for judgment on the pleadings] will foreclose the need for all discovery in this case.”
Id.; cf. X Corp., 2024 WL 1895255, at *2; Sedillo, 2020 WL 5411697, at *3.
And, so, the Court finds that the third factor, like the first two factors, on this
record weighs against a stay and, in its discretion, denies TLIC’s request to stay
discovery for lack of “good cause shown.” F ED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1).
TLIC alternatively “proposes conducting discovery in two phases: (1) individual
Case 3:25-cv-03231-S-BN Document 19 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 14 PageID <pageID>

-4-
and (2) class.” Dkt. No. 18 at 3.
But Price has not alleged, in his complaint or the original or amended joint
status report, that he is seeking to proceed with a class action. The only references to
class treatment appear in TLIC’s proposals.
And, as a pro se plaintiff, Price could not proceed on behalf of absent class
members even if he did seek to do so. See Oduwole v. Lyft Inc., No. 4:23-cv-1127-O-
BP, 2024 WL 992734, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2024), rec. adopted, 2024 WL 991601
(N.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2024).
And, so, based on those preliminary rulings and observations, the Court enters
this initial scheduling order under the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction
Plan for the Northern District of Texas and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b).
2. 	Joinder of Parties
Any motion for leave to join additional parties must be filed by March 25,
2026.
3. 	Amendment of Pleadings
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) provides that “[a] party may amend
its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if
the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service
of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under [Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure] 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” F ED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(1). Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) then provides that, “[i]n all other cases, a party may
amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s
Case 3:25-cv-03231-S-BN Document 19 Filed 02/05/26 Page 4 of 14 PageID <pageID>

-5-
leave.” F ED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2).
Accordingly, 	unless 	Rule 	15(a)(1) 	permits 	an 	amended 	or 	supplemental
pleading to be filed without leave, or an amended or supplemental pleading is filed
with the opposing party’s written consent, a motion for leave must be filed to amend
or supplement pleadings, and any motion for leave must be filed by March 25, 2026.
The Court generally will grant a timely-filed motion for leave to amend as a matter
of course absent a showing of undue prejudice, futility, undue delay, bad faith,
dilatory motive, or repeated failures to cure deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed. See F ED. R. CIV. P. 15(a).
No amendments will be allowed after this deadline except on a showing of good
cause. See F ED. R. CIV . P. 16(b)(4).
Any motion for leave to amend a pleading must include both a clean version of
the proposed amended pleading and a version in which all new or deleted language
in the proposed amended pleading is noted by using a program’s redline function or
through underlining, brackets, highlighting, and the like. Accord N.D. T EX . L. CIV. R.
15.1.
4. 	Expert Witnesses
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D), Plaintiff must designate
expert witnesses by June 5, 2026. Defendant must designate expert witnesses by
July 6, 2026. A party who intends to offer expert evidence “intended solely to
contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party”
must designate rebuttal expert witnesses no later than 30 days after disclosure of
Case 3:25-cv-03231-S-BN Document 19 Filed 02/05/26 Page 5 of 14 PageID <pageID>

-6-
the corresponding expert witness(es) by the opposing party.
The designation of experts must comply with the provisions of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(a), including the preparation of a written report signed by the
expert. But a written report is only required “if the witness is one retained or specially
employed to provide expert testimony in the case or one whose duties as the party’s
employee regularly involve giving expert testimony.” F ED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(B). If,
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), an expert report is not required,
the designation must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(C)’s
requirements.
Any motion challenging, seeking to disqualify, or otherwise related to a
designated expert witness or his or her designation or testimony must be filed by
September 3, 2026.
5. 	Discovery
Initial disclosures must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1).
All discovery must be initiated in time to be completed by August 4, 2026.
This includes the use of subpoenas to obtain documents from third parties under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 and the supplementation of discovery responses
as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e). (But this order does not relieve
any party of the Rule 26(e)(1) obligation to supplement or correct a disclosure or
response if the party learns after August 4, 2026 that, in some material respect, a
prior disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect and the additional or corrective
information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the
Case 3:25-cv-03231-S-BN Document 19 Filed 02/05/26 Page 6 of 14 PageID <pageID>

-7-
discovery process or in writing.)
The presumptive limit of 10 depositions per side, seven hours per deposition,
and 25 interrogatories per party will apply in this case. See F ED. R. CIV. P.
30(a)(2)(A)(i) & 33(a)(1). Additionally, no party may serve more than thirty Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 36 requests for admission without leave of court for good cause
shown. For purposes of this limitation, a single request for admission must be limited
to a single statement or matter that the serving party seeks for the responding party
to admit. See F ED. R. CIV. P. 36(a)(2) (“Each matter must be separately stated.”). No
other limitations on discovery are imposed at this time.
Any motion to compel discovery or for a protective order must be filed by the
later of (1) July 21, 2026 or (2) 10 days after the discovery response at issue was
served or due to be served. Any other motions that are related to discovery but do not
seek 	to 	compel 	or 	avoid 	as-yet 	uncompleted 	depositions, 	service 	of 	discovery
responses, or production of documents or electronically stored information must be
filed by August 7, 2026.
Any motion to quash or for protective order relating to a deposition that is filed
in less than five business days before the scheduled or noticed date of the deposition
will be summarily denied unless, on proper motion, the Court grants leave for the
motion to be filed based on a showing of extraordinary or extenuating circumstances
that prevented the requested relief from being presented to the Court at an earlier
date.
Further, in accordance with Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), any attorney-
Case 3:25-cv-03231-S-BN Document 19 Filed 02/05/26 Page 7 of 14 PageID <pageID>

-8-
client privilege or work-product protection will not be waived by disclosure in
connection with this case, and the production of privileged or work-product protected
documents, 	electronically 	stored 	information 	(“ESI”), 	or 	information, 	whether
inadvertent or otherwise, is not a waiver of the privilege or protection from discovery
in this case or in any other federal or state proceeding. This order will be interpreted
to provide the maximum protection allowed by Rule 502(d), but nothing contained in
this order is intended to or will serve to limit a party’s right to conduct a review of
documents, ESI, or information (including metadata) for relevance, responsiveness,
and/or segregation of privileged and/or protected information before production.
And, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B), if information produced
in discovery is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation
material, the party making the claim may notify any party that received the
information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must
promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has;
must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take
reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being
notified; and may promptly present the information to the court under seal for a
determination of the claim. The producing party must preserve the information until
the claim is resolved.
6. 	Mediation/Settlement
Mediation of this case must be completed by August 19, 2026.
In advance of this deadline, the Court may, if appropriate, refer the parties to
Case 3:25-cv-03231-S-BN Document 19 Filed 02/05/26 Page 8 of 14 PageID <pageID>

-9-
a settlement conference with a magistrate judge or may convene a status conference
with the parties to discuss such a referral. But the parties should advise the Court
immediately if they believe that their settlement discussions and negotiations would,
in advance of any action by the Court, benefit from a referral to a settlement
conference or any other form of alternative dispute resolution. See N.D. T EX . L. CIV.
R. 16.3 (“Settlement. a. Settlement Negotiations. Parties in a civil action must make
good-faith efforts to settle. Settlement negotiations must begin at the earliest possible
time, well in advance of any pretrial conference. b. Settlement Conferences. A judge
will be available for settlement discussions. In nonjury cases the presiding judge will
not discuss settlement figures unless requested to do so by all concerned parties.”).
No later than 7 days after the mediation is completed, the parties must file a
joint status report that is limited to advising the Court that the case did or did not
settle.
7. 	Dispositive Motions
All dispositive motions must be filed by September 3, 2026.
Any dispositive motion must be accompanied by or incorporate a brief, and the
motion and the brief may not together exceed 30 pages in length, excluding any table
of contents and table of authorities. See N.D. T EX . L. CIV. R. 56.5(b) (as modified).
The party filing a dispositive motion must, in a separate section at the
beginning of the brief, identify the live pleadings for each party who has appeared in
the action and specify the name of each pleading, the date it was filed, and the
pleading’s document number on the Court’s docket. Additionally, except to the extent
Case 3:25-cv-03231-S-BN Document 19 Filed 02/05/26 Page 9 of 14 PageID <pageID>

-10-
that any requirement is modified herein, any motion for summary judgment must
comply with the requirements of Northern District of Texas Local Civil Rules 56.3(a)-
(d), 56.5(a), 56.5(c), and 56.6(a)-(b).
Any affidavits, depositions, written discovery materials, or other summary
judgment evidence must be included in a separate appendix. The appendix must be
numbered sequentially from the first page through the last and include an index of
all documents contained therein. An envelope that contains a non-documentary or
oversized exhibit must be numbered as if it were a single page. See N.D. T EX. L. CIV.
R. 56.6.
The moving party must (1) bracket in the margin of each document in the
appendix or (2) place a text box around or (3) otherwise highlight the portions of the
document on which the movant relies, and, when citing record materials in its brief,
the moving party must support each assertion by citing each relevant page of its
appendix.
No party may file more than one motion for summary judgment without leave
of court. See N.D. T EX. L. CIV. R. 56.2(b).
If a motion for summary judgment is timely filed, the Court will establish a
summary judgment briefing schedule by separate order. Ordinarily, the Court will
grant the non-movant 30 days to file a response, and the movant will then be granted
15 days to file a reply.
Except as provided in the Court’s briefing order, supplemental scheduling
order, or other order entered in connection with the motion for summary judgment,
Case 3:25-cv-03231-S-BN Document 19 Filed 02/05/26 Page 10 of 14 PageID <pageID>

-11-
no 	supplemental 	pleadings, 	briefs, 	or 	summary 	judgment 	evidence 	or 	other
documents will be allowed in connection with the motion for summary judgment or
response thereto without leave of court. See N.D. T EX . L. CIV. R. 56.7.
“A party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot
be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.” F ED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(2).
“There is no need to make a separate motion to strike.” F ED. R. CIV. P. 56 advisory
committee’s note to 2010 amendments; accord Adams v. Untied Assoc. of Journeymen
& Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Indus. of the U.S. & Canada, AFL-
CIO, Local 198, Civ. A. No. 98-400-JWD-RLB, 2020 WL 1856191, at * (M.D. La. Apr.
13, 2020) (“For approximately the past nine years, recommended federal practices
have entailed considering objections to evidence offered in support of or in opposition
to motions for summary judgment in conjunction with the actual motion for summary
judgment as opposed to a separate motion to strike, similar to the practice of objecting
to evidentiary offerings at trial.”).
The 	Court 	will 	not 	consider 	a 	separate 	motion 	to 	strike 	evidence, 	fact
statements, or briefing offered in support of or in opposition to summary judgment.
The Court will summarily deny without prejudice any motion to strike filed in
violation of these directions.
The parties instead must include any objections to evidence, fact statements,
or briefing offered in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment
within their briefs (including reply briefs) in support of or in opposition to a motion
for summary judgment.
Case 3:25-cv-03231-S-BN Document 19 Filed 02/05/26 Page 11 of 14 PageID <pageID>

-12-
If a party includes objections in a response in opposition to a motion for
summary judgment, any response to the objections must be included in the reply brief
in support of the motion for summary judgment, and no reply in support of the
objections is permitted.
If a party includes objections in a reply brief in support of a motion for
summary judgment, any response to the objections must be made in a separate brief
that does not exceed 10 pages in length, excluding any table of contents and table of
authorities, and that must be filed by no later than 14 days after the date of filing of
the reply brief in support of a motion for summary judgment, and no reply in support
of the objections is permitted.
Neither a dispositive motion nor the brief in support may be combined in one
document with a party’s answer.
If a motion to dismiss becomes moot due to the filing of an amended pleading,
the moving party must notify the Court immediately.
8. 	Motions Not Otherwise Covered
A party must file a motion not otherwise covered by this order by no later than
September 3, 2026.
This deadline does not apply to motions in limine (other than motions related
to an expert witness) or to objections filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(3), which must be filed no later than the deadlines to be established by an order
setting trial-related deadlines to be issued later.
9. 	Compliance with Standing Order
Case 3:25-cv-03231-S-BN Document 19 Filed 02/05/26 Page 12 of 14 PageID <pageID>

-13-
All discovery-related motions, pleading disputes, and other non-dispositive
motions must comply with the Standing Order on Discovery and Non-Dispositive
Motions entered in this case.
10. 	Modifying Deadlines
The deadlines set forth in this order will not be modified except on written
motion for good cause shown. See F ED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4).
Further, the Court strongly discourages any request to extend the dispositive
motions deadline through a motion that is filed later than three business days before
the existing deadline and will grant any such motion only on a showing in the written
motion of extraordinary circumstances.
Please note that deadlines in this order are for filing or delivery and are not
mailing dates.
11. 	Change of Contact Information
Any attorney or any party who is proceeding pro se who changes the attorney’s
or party’s business address or mailing address, e-mail address, telephone number,
facsimile number, or name must promptly notify the Clerk of the Court and the Court
in writing.
If the attorney or party is a registered user of Electronic Case Files (“ECF”),
the attorney or party must, in addition to notifying the Court in writing, promptly
follow the procedures in the ECF Administrative Procedures Manual to update the
changed address, e-mail address, telephone number, facsimile number, or name.
12. 	Noncompliance
Case 3:25-cv-03231-S-BN Document 19 Filed 02/05/26 Page 13 of 14 PageID <pageID>

-14-
The failure to comply with any part of this order may result in the imposition
of sanctions. See F ED. R. CIV. P. 16(f). Should any party or counsel fail to cooperate in
accomplishing anything required by this order, that party or counsel or both may be
subject to sanctions, including dismissal or entry of default.
The 	Court 	further 	informs 	parties 	not 	to 	include 	“private 	or 	sensitive
information in any document filed with the Court unless [it] is necessary to the case.”
This includes, but is not limited to, social security numbers, taxpayer identification
numbers, financial account numbers, minors’ names, and dates of birth.
13. 	Questions
Any questions concerning the requirements of this order may be directed to
Shakira Todd at (214) 753-2165.
Attorneys and parties should not contact Ms. Todd or the Court’s chambers to
ask when a ruling on a motion or other matter can be expected.
Questions concerning electronic filing procedures should be directed to the
ECF Help Desk at (866) 243-2866.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 5, 2026
_________________________________________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-03231-S-BN Document 19 Filed 02/05/26 Page 14 of 14 PageID <pageID>