Wardcraft Homes, Inc. v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company

Filing 23

ORDER granting in part 21 Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Rulings on Dispositive Motions Regarding the Duty to Defend. All discovery is STAYED pending resolution of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [# 17 ]. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 12/11/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00789-PAB-KLM
WARDCRAFT HOMES, INC., a Kansas corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, an Iowa corporation
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Stay
Discovery Pending Rulings on Dispositive Motions Regarding the Duty to
Defend [#21]1 (the “Motion”).
Although a 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) (“A stay of all discovery is generally disfavored in this District.” (citation omitted));
String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 02-cv-01934-LTB-PAC, 2006 WL
894955, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006) (finding that a thirty day stay of discovery was
appropriate when a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was pending);

1

“[#21]” 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 Order.

1

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 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 defendant; (3) the convenience
to the Court; (4) the interests of nonparties; and (5) the public interest. String Cheese
Incident, LLC, 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, staying discovery would apparently not prejudice Plaintiff, as it is
unopposed to the Motion. Therefore, the Court finds that the first String Cheese Incident
factor weighs in favor of a stay. With regard to the second factor, it appears Defendant will
2

not be burdened by a stay because it is seeking a stay. The Court therefore finds that the
second String Cheese Incident factor weighs in favor of a stay. With regard to the third
factor, it is certainly more convenient for the Court to enter a stay until it is clear that the
case will move forward. 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 nonparties
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.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#21] is GRANTED in part. Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all discovery is STAYED pending resolution of
Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [#17].2
Dated: December 11, 2013

2

In the Motion, Defendant requests that the stay remain in place until Plaintiff’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment [#17] and a motion for summary judgment that Defendant intends to
file are resolved. Motion [#21] at 3. The Court will not enter an order staying discovery that is
contingent on resolution of an unfiled motion.

3