Pandaw America, Inc. et al v. Pandaw Cruises India Pvt. Ltd. et al

Filing 49

ORDER denying 46 Defendants Motion to Stay Discovery Pursuant to Rule 26(a) (1)(C) and Rule 26(c) by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 1/4/2012.(ervsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02593-WJM-KLM
PANDAW AMERICA, INC., and
PAUL G. STRACHAN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PANDAW CRUISES INDIA PVT. LTD.,
EXOTIC JOURNEYS PVT. LTD, conspirator participant entity,
EXOTIC HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD, conspirator participant entity,
GAJRAJ WILDLIFE RESORTS PVT, LTD, conspirator participant entity,
HERITAGE RIVER CRUISES, conspirator participant entity,
RAJ SINGH, conspirator participant individual,
ATTAR SINGH, conspirator participant individual,
GAJENDRA SINGH, conspirator participant individual,
VISHNU SINGH SINSINWAR, conspirator participant individual,
ASHRAFI DEVI, conspirator participant individual,
SANJAY SAHAY, conspirator participant individual,
ATUL BHATT, conspirator participant individual,
V A R I O U S P A N D A W I N T E R N E T DOMAIN PROPERTIES, in
www.bengalpandaw.com, www.pandaw.in, www.pandawcruisesindia.com, and
JOHN DOE(S), individuals, entities, and properties inclusively,

rem,

Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery
Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(C) and Rule 26(c) [Docket No. 46; Filed January 3, 2012] (the
“Motion”). Defendants ask the Court to stay discovery pending resolution of their Motion
to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction [#39], which became ripe for review on June
20, 2011 [#42]. Defendants represent that Plaintiffs oppose the requested relief. For the
1

reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the Motion.1
This Court has long noted that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly
provide for a stay of proceedings in a lawsuit. String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows,
Inc., No. 02-cv-01934-LTB-PAC, 2006 WL 894955 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006). However, the
Court has construed Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) to permit a stay of discovery “for good cause, to
protect a party from undue burden or expense,” especially when dispositive motions are
pending. Id. The party who seeks a stay of discovery has the burden of demonstrating
good cause, and “cannot sustain that burden by offering simply conclusory statements.”
Tr. of Springs Transit Co. Emp.’s Ret. and Disability Plan v. City of Colorado Springs, No.
09-cv-02842-WYD-CBS, 2010 WL 1904509, at *4 (D. Colo. May 11, 2010). Generally, the
Court requires a “particular and specific demonstration of fact” in support of a request for
a stay. Id.; see also Christou v. Beatport, LLC, No. 10-cv-02912-CMA-KMT, 2011 WL
650377, at *1 (D. Colo. Feb. 10, 2011). In the context of ruling on a motion to stay, the
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals stated almost thirty years ago that “the right to proceed in
court should not be denied except under the most extreme circumstances.” Commodity
Futures Trading Comm’n v. Chilcott Portfolio Mgmt., Inc., 713 F.2d 1477, 1484 (10th Cir.
1983). Hence, it has long been recognized that stays are generally disfavored in this
district, although the decision to grant or deny them invokes the discretion of the Court
under the circumstances at issue. See, e.g., id.
Precedent amply demonstrates that the Court has broad discretion to stay an action
when a dispositive motion is pending. String Cheese Incident, LLC, 2006 WL 894955 at

1

The Court may rule on a motion at any time after it is filed. D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C.

2

*2 (finding that a thirty-day stay of discovery was appropriate when a motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction was pending). Indeed, “a court may decide that in a particular
case it would be wise to stay discovery on the merits until [certain challenges] have been
resolved.” 8 Charles Allen Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2040, at 521-22
(2d ed. 1994) (“[W]hen one issue may be determinative of a case, the court has discretion
to stay discovery on other issues until the critical issue has been decided.”); see also Vivid
Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 804 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“When a
particular issue may be dispositive, the court may stay discovery concerning other issues
until the critical issue is resolved.”); Nankivil v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 216 F.R.D. 689, 692
(M.D. Fla. 2003) (holding that a stay is appropriate if “resolution of a preliminary motion
may dispose of the entire action”).
Finally, the factors to be applied by the Court in determining the propriety of a stay
are: (1) Plaintiffs’ interests in proceeding expeditiously with the action and the potential
prejudice to Plaintiffs resulting from a delay; (2) the burden on the Defendants; (3) the
convenience to the Court; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the litigation; and (5)
the public interest. String Cheese Incident, LLC, 2006 WL 894955 at *2.
1. Plaintiffs’ Interests
This litigation does not differ substantially from other civil litigation. Plaintiffs’
interests in proceeding with the lawsuit are manifest, as are Defendants’ interests in
avoiding or delaying it. Here, staying discovery would further delay the resolution of
Plaintiffs’ claims in an already-aging case, should the pending Motion to Dismiss be denied.
This factor weights against the imposition of a stay.

3

2. Defendants’ Burden
This issue concerns whether Defendants will be unfairly burdened if discovery
proceeds before rulings are issued on the pending dispositive motion. See, e.g., String
Cheese Incident, LLC, 2006 WL 894955 at *2 (“defendants, however, also would
undoubtedly be prejudiced if they were forced to engage in discovery if the court eventually
granted their motion to dismiss”). The Court is not inclined to prejudge the merits of the
dispositive motion; however, the Court recognizes that proceeding with discovery would be
wasteful should the Motion to Dismiss be granted. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of
imposing a stay.
3. Convenience to the Court
Entry of a stay may cause significant delay of the resolution of this matter, which in
turn makes the Court’s docket less predictable and less manageable. Moreover, the
District Judge discourages litigation strategy or conduct that results in delaying the progress
of litigation, including the filing of motions for extensions of time, motions for continuances
of hearings, and dispositive motions generally. See WJM Practice Standards §§ II.D, III.D,
III.E (Nov. 1, 2011). This factor weighs against the entry of a stay.
4. Interest of Non-Parties
The Court finds that this factor does not weigh in favor of or against imposition of
a stay, as it is impossible to predict the effect of a stay on any non-parties at this time.
5. The Public Interest
The public interest at stake here is the same interest underlying all lawsuits: that
they be resolved as fairly and quickly as possible. In light of the issues outlined above, the

4

Court finds that considerations of fairness and timeliness will not be advanced by imposition
of a stay. Hence, this factor weighs against entry of a stay.
The strong presumption against stays, as well as application of the String Cheese
factors, results in the conclusion that an imposition of a stay of discovery is not justified in
this case. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#46] is DENIED. The Scheduling
Conference remains set for January 26, 2012.
Dated: January 4, 2012

5