Carty-Mauk v. Custer County, Board of County Commissioners et al

Filing 51

ORDER granting 23 Motion to Stay Discovery. Discovery is stayed pending resolution of 22 Motion to Dismiss. The 5/28/13 Scheduling Conference is vacated. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 5/3/13.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02117-REB-KLM
CHRISTINA CARTY-MAUK, as the mother and next friend of B.C., a minor child,
Plaintiff,
v.
LINDA ELLIOTT, in her individual capacity, and
LEOKADIA ANN FREEMAN,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Linda Elliott’s (“Elliott”) Motion to Stay
Discovery [Docket No. 23; Filed October 26, 2012] (the “Motion”). Defendant Leokadia
Ann Freeman is unopposed to the Motion. Motion [#23] at 1. On November 9, 2012,
Plaintiff filed a Response [#27] in opposition to the Motion. On November 21, 2012,
Defendant Elliott filed a Reply [#32]. Defendant Elliott asks the Court to stay discovery in
this case until after final resolution of her pending Motion to Dismiss [#22], in which she
seeks qualified immunity.
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-cv-1-

01934-LTB-PAC, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006) (unreported decision)
(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
-2-

v. Renda, No. 85-2216-O, 1987 WL 348635, at *2 (D. Kan. Aug. 6, 1987)).
In this case, staying discovery would not prejudice Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s argument
against a stay is that Defendant Elliott is not entitled to qualified immunity, an argument
which is fully briefed by the parties in relation to Defendant Elliott’s Motion to Dismiss [#22].
Plaintiff argues that not all discovery is barred when a defendant asserts qualified immunity.
However, Plaintiff does not provide any indication of prejudice she would suffer if a stay in
this matter were granted and Plaintiff is required to wait to conduct discovery until after
Defendant Elliott’s Motion to Dismiss [#22] is resolved.1 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 Defendant Elliott has not
demonstrated that proceeding with the discovery process presents an undue burden.
However, qualified immunity “give[s] government officials a right, not merely to avoid
‘standing trial,’ but also to avoid the burdens of ‘such pretrial matters as discovery . . . .’”
Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 308 (1996) (citation omitted). Immunity questions
should be resolved at the earliest possible stage of the litigation, thereby avoiding many of
the associated burdens and costs. Albright v. Rodriguez, 51 F.3d 1531, 1534 (10th Cir.
1995). In light of the Court’s obligation to “exercise its discretion so that officials [properly
asserting qualified immunity] are not subjected to unnecessary and burdensome discovery
or trial proceedings,” Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 597-98 (1998), the Court finds
that the second String Cheese Incident factor weighs in favor of staying discovery.

1

Notably, Plaintiff has not objected to a continuation of the Scheduling Conference based
on the fact that rulings are pending on two Motions to Dismiss [#20, #22]. See Unopposed Third
Motion to Continue the Scheduling Conference [#43]. This also tends to indicate that Plaintiff will
not experience prejudice if a stay is imposed in this matter.

-3-

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. See Chavous, 201 F.R.D. at 5 (stating
that 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].”).
With regard to the fourth factor, there are no nonparties with significant particularized
interests in this case. Accordingly, the fourth String Cheese Incident factor weighs neither
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 clearly serves this interest. Thus, the fifth String Cheese Incident factor
weighs in favor of staying discovery.
Weighing the relevant factors, the Court concludes that staying discovery pending
resolution of Defendant Elliott’s Motion to Dismiss [#22] is appropriate. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#23] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all discovery is stayed pending resolution of the
Motion to Dismiss [#22].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference set for May 28, 2013
at 9:30 a.m. is VACATED. It shall be reset, if necessary, pending final resolution of the
Motion to Dismiss [#22].
DATED: May 3, 2013

-4-