Frederick v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company

Filing 32

ORDER granting 29 Joint Motion to Stay until after the District Judge has ruled on the pending 14 Motion to Remand; granting 30 Unopposed Motion to Reschedule the Scheduling Conference by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/14/2011.(ervsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02306-WJM-KLM
LARRY D. FREDERICK,
Plaintiff,
v.
HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Stay [Docket No.
29; Filed November 10, 2011] (the “Motion to Stay”) and Defendant’s Unopposed Motion
to Reschedule Scheduling Conference [Docket No. 30; Filed November 10, 2011] (the
“Motion to Reschedule”). The parties ask the Court to stay scheduling and discovery in this
case until after the District Judge has ruled on the pending Motion to Remand [Docket No.
14; Filed September 30, 2011].
Although the stay of proceedings in a case is generally disfavored, the Court has
discretion to stay discovery while a dispositive motion is pending. See Wason Ranch Corp.
v. Hecla Mining Co., No. 07-cv-00267-EWN-MEH, 2007 WL 1655362, at *1 (D. Colo. June
6, 2007) (unreported decision) (“A stay of all discovery is generally disfavored in this
District.” (citation omitted)); String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 1:02-cv01934-LTB-PAC, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006) (unreported decision)

-1-

(finding that a thirty day stay of discovery was appropriate when a motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction was pending); Nankivil v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 216 F.R.D.
689, 692 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (A stay may be appropriate if “resolution of a preliminary motion
may dispose of the entire action.”); 8 Charles Alan 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.”); 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.”); Gilbert v. Ferry, 401 F.3d 411,
415-16 (6th Cir. 2005) (finding that ordering a stay of discovery is not an abuse of
discretion when a defendant has filed a motion to dismiss challenging the court’s actual
subject matter jurisdiction); Chavous v. D.C. Fin. Responsibility & Mgmt. Assistance Auth.,
201 F.R.D. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2005) (“A stay of discovery pending the determination of a
dispositive motion is an eminently logical means to prevent wasting the time and effort of
all concerned, and to make the most efficient use of judicial resources.” (internal quotation
omitted)).
When exercising its discretion, the Court considers the following factors: (1) the
interest of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously with discovery and the potential prejudice
to the plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on the defendants of proceeding with discovery;
(3) the convenience to the Court of staying discovery; (4) the interests of nonparties in
either staying or proceeding with discovery; and (5) the public interest in either staying or
proceeding with discovery. String Cheese Incident, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (citing FDIC
v. Renda, No. 85-2216-O, 1987 WL 348635, at *2 (D. Kan. Aug. 6, 1987) (unreported
-2-

decision)).
In this case, staying discovery would not prejudice Plaintiff or Defendant. The
parties agree that there will be no prejudice to either party if they are required to wait to
conduct discovery until after Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [#14] is resolved. The Court finds
that the first and second String Cheese Incident factors weigh in favor of staying scheduling
and discovery.
With regard to the third factor, it is certainly more convenient for the Court to stay
discovery until it is clear that the case will proceed in this court. See Chavous, 201 F.R.D.
at 5 (staying discovery pending decision on a dispositive motion that would fully resolve the
case “furthers the ends of economy and efficiency, since if [the motion] is granted, there
will be no need for [further proceedings]”). The third factor thus weighs in favor of staying
scheduling and discovery.
With regard to the fourth factor, there are no nonparties with significant particularized
interests in this case. Accordingly, the fourth String Cheese Incident factor neither weighs
in favor nor against a stay.
With regard to the fifth and final factor, the Court finds that the public’s only interest
in this case is a general interest in its efficient and just resolution. Avoiding wasteful efforts
by the Court clearly serves this interest. Thus, the fifth String Cheese Incident factor
weighs in favor of a stay.
Weighing the relevant factors, the Court concludes that staying scheduling and
discovery pending resolution of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand [#14] is appropriate.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Stay [#29] is GRANTED. Scheduling
-3-

and discovery in this matter are hereby STAYED pending the District Judge’s resolution
of Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [#14].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Reschedule [#30] is GRANTED in
part, to the extent that it requests that the Scheduling Conference be vacated, and
DENIED in part, to the extent that it requests that the Scheduling Conference be reset at
this time. Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference set for November 22,
2011 at 9:30 a.m. is VACATED. If necessary, it will be reset after resolution of Plaintiff’s
Motion to Remand [#14].

DATED: November 14, 2011 at Denver, Colorado.

-4-