Callies et al v. Lane et al

Filing 65

ORDER granting 45 Motion to Stay by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 10/25/13. All discovery is stayed. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00484-CMA-KLM
LORI CALLIES, and
KEVIN CALLIES,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LISA LANE, in her individual and official capacities,
SALLY CHAPMAN, in her individual and official capacities,
ERIN JEMISON, in her official capacity as the SOMB Board Chair,
MARY BAYDARIAN, in her official capacity as SOMB Board Member,
CARL BLAKE, in his official capacity as SOMB Board Member,
ALLISON BOYD, in her official capacity as SOMB Board Member,
A MERVYN DAVIES, in his official capacity as SOMB Board Member,
CHERYL DAVIES, in her official capacity as SOMB Board Member,
JESSICA CURTIS, in her official capacity as SOMB Board Member,
AMY FITCH, in her official capacity as SOMB Board Member,
JEFF GEIST, in his official capacity as SOMB Board Member,
MISSY GURSKY, in her official capacity as SOMB Board Member,
PEGGY HEIL, in her official capacity as SOMB Board Member,
WILLIAM HILDEBRAND, in his official capacity as SOMB Board Member,
NANCY JOHNSON, in her official capacity as SOMB Board Member,
JEFF JENKS, in his official capacity as SOMB Board Member,
MARCELO KOPCOW, in his official capacity as SOMB Board Member,
DIANNA LWYER-BROOK, in her official capacity as SOMB Board Member,
TOM LEVERSEE, in his official capacity as SOMB Board Member,
RICHARD BEDNARSKI, in his official capacity as SOMB Board Member,
JOHN ODENHEIMER, in his official capacity as SOMB Board Member,
JESSICA MEZA, in her official capacity as SOMB Board Member,
ANGEL WEANT, in her official capacity as SOMB Board Member,
MIMI SCHEUERMANN, in her official capacity as SOMB Board Member, and
DOUG STEPHENS, in his official capacity as SOMB Board Member,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
-1-

This matter is before the Court on the State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint on the Basis of State Court Ruling [#44]; on the State
Defendants’ Motion to Stay [#45]; and on Defendant Chapman’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint Based Upon State Court Ruling [#51].
Regarding the Motions to Dismiss [#44, #51], due to a recent state court ruling,
Defendants assert in the Reply [#63] to the Motion to Dismiss [#44] that there are now
issues regarding the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Because these
arguments are newly-raised in the Reply, the Court sua sponte permits Plaintiffs to file a
surreply in order to address those arguments.
Regarding the Motion to Stay [#45], Defendants ask the Court to stay discovery in
this case until after the pending Motions to Dismiss have been ruled on. Defendants cite
to String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 02-cv-01934-LTB-PA, 2006 WL
894955 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006) in support of their position. Motion to Stay [#45] at 3-4.
Defendants argue that the five factors articulated in String Cheese Incident weigh in favor
of imposing a stay. Plaintiffs oppose the request for a stay. Response [#62].
Although the stay of proceedings in a case is generally disfavored, the Court has
discretion to stay discovery while a dispositive motion is pending. Wason Ranch Corp. v.
Hecla Mining Co., No. 07-cv-00267-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)).
See also 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); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &

-2-

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.”); 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); 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));
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.”).
When exercising its discretion, the Court considers the following factors: (1) the
interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with discovery and the potential
prejudice to the plaintiffs 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)).
In this case, Plaintiffs do not provide any reason as to why a stay of discovery would
prejudice them. See Response [#62] at 13-14. Accordingly, 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.
However, Defendants are correct that proceeding will be wasteful if the Motions to Dismiss
-3-

are granted. Further, should any discovery disputes arise, the Court will have to expend
its time and limited resources.

If the Motions to Dismiss are resolved in favor of

Defendants, the Court’s expenditure would be for naught. The Court therefore finds that
the second String Cheese Incident factor weighs in favor of staying discovery.
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 motions are] granted, there
will be no need for [further proceedings].”).
With regard to the fourth factor, the parties do not direct the Court’s attention to any
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 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 Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [#44, #51] is appropriate. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Stay [#45] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all discovery is STAYED pending resolution of the
Motions to Dismiss [#44, #51].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a surreply to Defendants’ Reply

-4-

[#63] on or before November 12, 2013.

DATED: October 25, 2013 at Denver, Colorado.

-5-