Colorado Casualty Insurance Company v. Brock USA, LLC et al

Filing 59

ORDER granting 55 Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Stay Current Case Deadlines Pending Determination of Coverage Issues. All discovery in this matter is STAYED, and all deadlines are VACATED, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 4/3/12.(lswsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 11–cv–02527–DME–KMT

COLORADO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
BROCK USA LLC,
Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the “Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Stay
Current Case Deadlines Pending Determination of Coverage Issues” (Doc. No. 55, filed March
30, 2012).
On September 27, 2011, Colorado Casualty filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief
against Brock requesting that the Court determine that Colorado Casualty has no duty to either
defend or indemnify Brock in connection with an underlying action in British Columbia, Canada
(the “Underlying Action.”). On November 9, 2011, Brock responded to Colorado Casualty’s
Complaint and filed Counterclaims against Colorado Casualty seeking a declaratory judgment
that Colorado Casualty owes defense and indemnity obligations in connection with the
Underlying Action. In addition, Brock also asserted claims for breach of contract and bad faith

breach of insurance contract against Colorado Casualty. The parties in the Underlying Action
filed a stipulation to dismiss that case, and the Court entered a Consent Dismissal Order on
February 15, 2012. Brock filed an expanded Motion for Summary Judgment, which requests a
ruling on the coverage issues presented by this case. The Motion for Summary Judgment is not
fully briefed, and Colorado Casualty states it will file both its Response to Brock’s Motion for
Summary Judgment and its Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment contemporaneously. The
parties request an order staying all case deadlines in the scheduling order pending a
determination of Brock’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Colorado Casualty’s Cross-Motion
for Summary Judgment1 on the issue of insurance coverage obligations.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for a stay of proceedings.
See String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., 02-CV-01934-LTB-PA, 2006 WL
894955, at *2 (D. Colo. March 30, 2006). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 does, however,
provide that
[a] party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order
in the court where the action is pending . . . The court may, for good cause, issue an order
to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden
or expense . . . .
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a).
A motion to stay discovery is an appropriate exercise of this court’s discretion. Landis v.
N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936). “The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the
power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy
of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the

2

exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Id.
(citing Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 760, 763 (1931)). 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.” 8A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L.
Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2040, 198 (3d ed. 2010); see also Vivid Techs., Inc.
v. Am. Sci. & Eng’r, 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.”).
When considering a stay of discovery, the court may consider and weigh: (1) the
plaintiff’s interests in proceeding expeditiously with the civil action and the potential prejudice
to plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on the defendants; (3) the convenience to the court; (4) the
interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest. See FDIC v.
Renda, No. 85-2216-O, 1987 WL 348635, at *2 (D. Kan. Aug. 6, 1987) (unpublished) (citing
cases).
Here, the parties agree that a stay is appropriate. The parties state a stay will allow them
to efficiently approach this litigation once the court rules on the critical issues of whether
Colorado Casualty had a duty to defend and indemnify Brock. Additionally, the parties argue a
stay will abate expenses that would be incurred in connection with fact and expert discovery
directed at the claims for common-law and statutory bad faith until this Court determines
whether coverage is available under the insurance policies at issue in the first instance. Thus, a
stay of discovery favors both parties. The court also considers its own convenience, the interests
3

of non-parties, and the public interest in general. None of these factors prompt the court to reach
a different result.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that the “Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Stay Current Case
Deadlines Pending Determination of Coverage Issues” (Doc. No. 55) is GRANTED. All
discovery in this matter is STAYED, and all deadlines are VACATED. The parties shall status
report within five days once the District Court issues its ruling on the parties’ Motions for
Summary Judgment setting forth the issues, if any, that remain in the case based on the Court’s
disposition of the coverage questions.
Dated this 3rd day of April, 2012.

4