City of Murfreesboro, Tennessee v. BFI Waste Systems of Tennessee, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
CITY OF MURFREESBORO, TENNESSEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
BFI WASTE SYSTEMS OF TENNESSEE,
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00605
Judge Eli J. Richardson
Magistrate Judge Alistair E. Newbern
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Special Master Robert J. Martineau has filed his report and recommendation addressing
discovery issues referred to him by the Court in its September 23, 2025 order (Doc. No. 213).
Plaintiff City of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, filed objections to the report. (Doc. No. 223.)
Defendants BFT Waste Systems of Tennessee, LLC, et al., responded in opposition to the City’s
objections. (Doc. No. 225.) Having conducted a de novo review, the Court finds the City’s
objections without merit and adopts the Special Master’s report in full.
I. 	Legal Standard
The Court appointed the Special Master “to . . . address pretrial . . . matters that cannot be
effectively and timely addressed by an available district judge or magistrate judge of the district.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a)(1)(C). In the absence of the parties’ agreement otherwise, the Court decides
de novo all objections to the Special Master's recommendations or findings of fact. Fed. R. Civ. P.
53(f)(3). The Court also decides de novo all objections to the Special Master's conclusions of law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(4).
Case 3:22-cv-00605 Document 244 Filed 01/02/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

2
II. 	Analysis
Central to the City’s objections is the parties’ agreement in a joint motion to stay discovery
while mediation progressed that, if the mediation failed, “the parties have agreed to limit discovery
to only those requests which are currently pending . . . and there would be no further sampling
events, no further written discovery requests, etc.” (Doc. No. 165.) The Court adopted the parties’
agreement and ordered, in granting the stay, that, “if the litigation proceeds, no additional
discovery will be propounded by any party.” (Doc. No. 166.) The City argues that the parties’
agreement amounted to a stipulation about discovery procedure under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 29(b) and that the Court has broad discretion to set it aside. (Doc. No. 223.) Defendants
argue that the agreement may only be set aside to prevent a “manifest injustice.” (Doc. No. 225.)
The Special Master concluded that the City’s arguments to set aside the agreement and court order
failed under either standard. (Doc. No. 219.)
The Court agrees. The City’s primary argument is that the parties could not have
anticipated when they entered into the agreement that their mediation efforts would extend from
January 2024 to July 31, 2025, when the Murfreesboro City Council voted to reject the parties’
settlement agreement (Doc. No. 209). While the parties may not have anticipated such a protracted
mediation at the time they first requested that discovery be stayed, the City cannot argue that it did
not have numerous opportunities over the following nineteen months to ask the Court to revise its
order, to move to reopen discovery, or to reach a different agreement with Defendants. It did not,
and it has offered no explanation for that failure that warrants the Court’s exercise of discretion to
override the parties’ agreement or reverse its own order staying discovery. Further, the parties have
worked with the Special Master to reach agreement as to a reasonable scope of discovery that will
move forward as the case progresses. To allow the City the full scope of the new discovery it now
seeks to pursue would deny Defendants the benefit of their agreement and reward the City for
Case 3:22-cv-00605 Document 244 Filed 01/02/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

3
unilaterally rejecting the agreement reached by the parties after nineteen months of case resolution
efforts assisted by a mediator and the Special Master. Accordingly, the City’s arguments fail
whether the Court construes the parties’ agreement as a discovery stipulation under Rule 29 or as
a contract adopted by its own order. No further discovery outside of that agreed to by the parties
shall be conducted
Resolution of this issue also resolves the City’s remaining objections. Accordingly, the
Court will reject the City’s objections and adopt the Special Master’s report in full.
III. 	Conclusion
For these reasons, the Court ADOPTS the report and recommendation of Special Master
Robert J. Martineau (Doc. No. 219) in full. The parties are ORDERED to comply with its direction
in concluding their discovery efforts.
The parties are further ORDERED to file a joint proposed amended case management order
reflecting all outstanding case management deadlines and proposing an amended target trial date
by January 26, 2026.
It is so ORDERED.
____________________________________
ALISTAIR E. NEWBERN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:22-cv-00605 Document 244 Filed 01/02/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>