Henn et al v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company

Filing 94

ORDER granting 91 Motion to Stay. ORDERED that resolution of Interested Non-Party The Residences at Little Nell Development, LLC's Motion for Protective Order 88 is stayed until either a notice is filed stating that the parties and non-part y movant The Residences at Little Nell Development, LLC (RLND) wish to proceed with briefing the Motion for Protective Order in which case the Court will set a briefing schedule for the Motion for Protective Order 88 , or non-party RLND files a notice withdrawing the Motion for Protective Order 88 . by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 3/19/2014.(trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-03077-RM-KLM
(Consolidated with Civil Action No. 13-cv-01217-RM-KLM)
PRESTON B. HENN, individually, and
BETTY D. HENN, individually,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California Corporation,
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.,
Third-Party Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on the Unopposed Motion of Defendant/ThirdParty Plaintiff Fidelity National Title Company to Stay Ruling on Motion for Protective
Order Filed by Non-Party Residences at Little Nell Development [#91]1 (the “Motion”).
In the Motion, the parties jointly request a stay of the briefing and resolution of
Interested Non-Party The Residences as Little Nell Development, LLC’s Motion for
Protective Order [#88] (the “Motion for Protective Order”). The Motion for Protective Order

1

“[#91]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to
a specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I
use this convention throughout this Minute Order.

1

relates to whether a document that has already been produced by the non-party with
redactions must be produced without redactions. On February 21, 2014, the Court
received an email from counsel for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff (the “Email”). In the
Email, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff’s counsel stated:
This is to inform the court that today, February 21, settlement was reached
as to the claims of Plaintiffs against Defendant. No resolution has been
reached with respect to the third party claims pending against Pitkin County
Title.
As a result, once Plaintiffs file dismissal papers, the only remaining claims will be the claims
brought by Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff against Third-Party Defendant. In the Motion,
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff states that “[i]t is unclear at this point whether the
unredacted [document] will be necessary for the litigation of [Defendant/Third-Party
Plaintiff’s] claims against [Third-Party Defendant].” Motion [#91] at 3.
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court
to control the disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for
itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254
(1936); see also Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997). “How this can best be
done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain
an even balance.” Id. at 254-55.
When exercising its discretion to enter a stay, the Court considers the following
factors: (1) the interest of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously and the potential
prejudice to the plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on the defendants; (3) the convenience
to the Court; (4) the interests of nonparties; and (5) the public interest. String Cheese
Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 02-cv-01934-LTB-PA, 2006 WL 894955, at *2
2

(citing FDIC v. Renda, No. 85-2216-O, 1987 WL 348635, at *2 (D. Kan. Aug. 6, 1987)
(unreported decision)).
In this case, a stay of the briefing and resolution of the Motion for Protective Order
would apparently not prejudice or burden the parties or the non-party movant, as the nonparty joins in Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff’s Motion and Third-Party Defendant does not
oppose the Motion. Motion [#91] at 2. Therefore, the Court finds that the first and second
String Cheese Incident factors weigh in favor of a stay. With regard to the third factor, it
is certainly more convenient for the Court to enter a stay while the parties and non-party
determine if the dispute regarding the redacted document can be resolved without motion
practice. The Court therefore finds that the third String Cheese Incident factor weighs in
favor of a stay. With regard to the fourth factor, there are no other non-parties 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 and litigants serves this
interest. Thus, the fifth String Cheese Incident factor weighs in favor of a stay of resolution
of the Motion for Protective Order.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#91] is GRANTED. Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that resolution of Interested Non-Party The Residences
at Little Nell Development, LLC’s Motion for Protective Order [#88] is stayed until either (1)
a notice is filed stating that the parties and non-party movant The Residences at Little Nell
Development, LLC (“RLND”) wish to proceed with briefing the Motion for Protective Order

3

[#88], in which case the Court will set a briefing schedule for the Motion for Protective
Order [#88], or (2) non-party RLND files a notice withdrawing the Motion for Protective
Order [#88].
Dated: March 19, 2014

4