ACE American Insurance Company v. Dish Network, LLC

Filing 32

ORDER granting 30 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Temporary Stay and to Vacate Scheduling Conference Order. This matter is stayed pending further order of the Court, and the Scheduling Conference set for 7/31/2013 is vacated. The parties sh all file a status report with the Court within five business days of the District Courts ruling on Defendant's pending Motion to Dismiss indicating what, if any, scheduling may be needed. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 7/16/2013. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00560-REB-MEH
ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
DISH NETWORK, LLC,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Temporary Stay and to Vacate
Scheduling Conference Order [filed July 15, 2013; docket #30]. The motion is referred to this Court
for disposition (docket #31). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the unopposed motion.
I.

Background
Plaintiff initiated this action for declaratory judgment on March 4, 2013. Plaintiff then filed

an Amended Complaint as a matter of course on May 3, 2013, seeking a determination that it has
no obligation to pay expenses incurred in the defense of underlying lawsuits pursuant to applicable
insurance policies. (Docket #12.) Defendant responded to the Amended Complaint by filing a
Motion to Dismiss for this Court’s lack of jurisdiction on June 21, 2013, arguing that the action fails
to present an “actual controversy.” (Docket #22.)
Meanwhile, this Court set the matter for a Scheduling Conference to be held on July 31,
2013. The parties have not yet engaged in discovery or participated in the discovery planning
conference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f).

II.

Discussion
The decision to stay discovery rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Wang v.

Hsu, 919 F.2d 130, 130 (10th Cir. 1990). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly
provide for a stay of proceedings; however, Rule 26(c) does permit the court, upon a showing of
good cause, to “protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue
burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). A stay of all discovery is generally disfavored in this
district. Chavez v. Young Am. Ins. Co., No. 06-cv-02419-PSF-BNB, 2007 WL 683973, at *2 (D.
Colo. Mar. 2, 2007). However, as this Court has stated previously, “good cause may exist to stay
discovery if a dispositive motion has been filed that could resolve the case and a stay does not
unduly prejudice the opposing party.” Namoko v. Milgard Mfg., Inc., No. 06-cv-02031-WDMMEH, 2007 WL 1063564, at *1 (D. Colo. Apr. 6, 2007).
Typically, in evaluating a request for a stay of discovery, the following five factors guide the
Court’s determination:
(1) plaintiff’s interests in proceeding expeditiously with the civil action and the
potential prejudice to plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on the defendants; (3) the
convenience to the court; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation;
and (5) the public interest.
String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 02-cv-01934-LTB-PAC, 2006 WL 894955
at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006); see also Golden Quality Ice Cream Co. v. Deerfield Speciality
Papers, Inc., 87 F.R.D. 53, 56 (E.D. Pa. 1980).
A balance of these factors favors a temporary stay in this case. The Plaintiff does not oppose
Defendant’s motion for a stay to avoid any unnecessary burdens and/or costs of discovery should
the pending Motion to Dismiss be granted and the case closed. While the Court typically
discourages stays of discovery, the Court acknowledges the efficiency and fairness of delaying the
2

proceedings at this early stage of the litigation pending resolution of a motion to dismiss that could
resolve this matter in its entirety. See Harris v. United States, No. 09-cv-02658-PAB-KLM, 2010
WL 1687915, at *1 (D. Colo. Apr. 27, 2010) (“[n]either [the Court’s] nor the parties’ time is wellserved by being involved in the ‘struggle over the substance of the suit’ when, as here, a dispositive
motion is pending.”) (citations omitted). “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.’” Chavous v. Dist. of Columbia
Fin. Responsibility & Mgmt. Assistance Auth., 201 F.R.D. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2001) (citation omitted).
Therefore, as the pending Motion to Dismiss concerns the threshold issue of subject matter
jurisdiction and may resolve this matter in its entirety, the Court finds good cause exists to impose
a temporary stay until the District Court rules on the pending Motion to Dismiss.
III.

Conclusion
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the Defendant’s Unopposed

Motion for Temporary Stay and to Vacate Scheduling Conference Order [filed July 15, 2013; docket
#30]. This matter is hereby STAYED pending further order of the Court. The Scheduling
Conference currently set in this case for July 31, 2013 is vacated. The parties shall file a status
report with the Court within five business days of the District Court’s ruling on Defendant’s
pending Motion to Dismiss indicating what, if any, scheduling may be needed.

3

Dated at Denver, Colorado, this 16th day of July, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge

4