Murray v. Holyoke School District RE-1J et al

Filing 34

ORDER granting 31 Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Consolidation and Disposition of Second Complaint, to the extent it seeks a stay of discovery, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 7/11/13.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01989-CMA-KLM
SHARON MURRAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOLYOKE SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-1J,
HOLYOKE SCHOOL BOARD, and
HOLYOKE HIGH SCHOOL,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Stay
Proceedings Pending Consolidation and Disposition of Second Complaint [Docket
No. 31; Filed July 9, 2013] (the “Motion”). Plaintiffs are unopposed to the Motion. Motion
[#31] at 1.
In the Motion, Defendants seek a 10-day stay of all matters in the case, including
discovery, to allow Plaintiff to determine whether to proceed with a related case, 13-cv01373-CMA-KMT, which Plaintiff claims arises “from the same set of operative facts and
involve[s] the same actors.” Id. at 2. Defendants argue that a “stay of all matters including
discovery in this case, of ten days, is necessary . . . to avoid unnecessary duplicative
discovery such as multiple persons being subject to two depositions and/or responding to
multiple sets of written discovery.” Id. at 2-3. Defendants hint that if the related proceeding

1

moves forward one or more of the parties may file a motion to consolidate the two actions.
Id. at 1.
Although a stay of proceedings in a case is generally disfavored, the Court has
discretion to stay discovery. Compare Wason Ranch Corp. v. Hecla Mining Co., No. 07-cv00267-EWN-MEH, 2007 WL 1655362, at *1 (D. Colo. June 6, 2007) (“A stay of all
discovery is generally disfavored in this District.” (citation omitted)); with Ellis v. J.R.’s
Country Stores, Inc., No. 12-cv-01916-CMA-KLM, 2012 WL 6153513, at *1 (D. Colo. Dec.
11, 2012) (granting stay of proceedings). Further, “[a] court has inherent power to stay
proceedings ‘to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and
effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’” Ellis, 2012 WL 6153513, at *1 (quoting Landis
v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (observing that docket management “calls for the
exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even
balance”)); 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.”); Chavous v. D.C. Fin. Responsibility &
Mgmt. Assistance Auth., 201 F.R.D. 1, 2 (D.D.C.2001) (“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 marks and citation omitted)).
When exercising its discretion to stay discovery,1 the Court considers the following
factors: (1) the interest of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously with discovery and the

1

In this case, there are no imminent deadlines other than discovery deadlines.

2

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 decision)).
In this case, staying discovery would apparently not prejudice Plaintiff, as she is
unopposed to the Motion. Therefore, the Court finds that the first String Cheese Incident
factor weighs in favor of staying discovery. With regard to the second factor, the Court
finds that Defendants have not demonstrated that proceeding with the discovery process
presents an undue burden. The Court therefore finds that the second String Cheese
Incident factor weighs against a stay of discovery. With regard to the third factor, it is
certainly more convenient for the Court to stay discovery until it is clear whether the related
action, 13-cv-01373-CMA-KMT, will proceed. 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 staying discovery. 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 and litigants serves this interest. Thus, the fifth String Cheese Incident factor weighs
in favor of staying discovery.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#31] is GRANTED to the extent it seeks
a stay of discovery. Accordingly,

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all discovery is STAYED through July 19, 2013.
Dated: July 11, 2013

4