Escobar v. Foster et al

Filing 120

ORDER granting 111 Motion to Stay Proceedings, and granting in part and denying in part 116 Motion to Compel or Stay the Proceedings, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 6/10/13.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00489-CMA-KLM
JOSE MEDINA ESCOBAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASSOCIATE WARDEN S. FOSTER,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR L. REID,
MAJOR L. MALFELD,
LIEUTENANT L. TRAVIS,
LIEUTENANT TEDEMANN,
LIEUTENANT BURKE,
CAPTAIN PADILLA,
CAPTAIN D. WILLIAMS,
SERGEANT MARQUEZ,
SERGEANT MONTGOMERY,
SERGEANT HAWKINS,
SERGEANT FRETWELL,
C/O CALDARONELLO,
C/O P. ARCHULETA,
C/O ALANIS,
C/O AURITI,
C/O SAUCIDO,
C/O KITCHEN,
C/O S. HARTUNG,
C/O MONTANEZ, and
C/O B. TETRICK,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings
[Docket No. 111; Filed May 13, 2013] (“Defendants’ Motion”) and Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel or Stay the Proceedings [Docket No. 116; Filed May 28, 2013] (“Plaintiff’s
Motion” and, collectively with Defendants’ Motion, the “Motions”). Both Motions request a
1

stay of the proceedings until the Court issues decisions regarding pending motions in this
matter. Defendants’ Motion was filed contemporaneously with its pending Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(E)(2)(B)(1) [#110] which was fully briefed and ripe
for review as of June 6, 2013. Defendants argue that a stay is appropriate under the
factors outlined in String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 1:02-cv-01934LTB-PAC, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006) (unreported decision). Plaintiff
requests a stay “until his motions for injunctive relief are heard.” Plaintiff’s Motion [#116]
at 1. In the alternative, Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendants to provide him with
hygiene products. Id.
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, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (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
2

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)). Here, a dispositive motion is pending and both parties are in favor of a stay. In
addition, the Court finds that a stay will prevent the parties and the Court from needlessly
expending time and resources while Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [#110] is adjudicated.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion [#111] is GRANTED and
Plaintiff’s Motion [#116] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all disclosure and discovery is STAYED pending
resolution of the Motion to Dismiss [#110].
Dated: June 10, 2013

3