Doe et al v. McAfee et al

Filing 151

MINUTE ORDER denying 149 Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Directed at Magistrate Judge Watanabe Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 30.2(b), by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 6/3/2015. (emill)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01287-MSK-MJW
JOHN DOE,
JANE DOE,
E.C., by her parents and next friends,
E.S.C., by his parents and next friends, and
J.C., by his parents and next friends,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOANNA MCAFEE,
LISA LITTLE,
JOEY HARRIS,
MITCHELL MIHALKO, and
CHAD HAYNES,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Directed at Magistrate
Judge Watanabe Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 30.2(b) (Docket No. 149) is DENIED.
“A stay of a magistrate judge’s discovery order should be granted sparingly.” HEI
Res. E. OMG Joint Venture v. S. Lavon Evans, Jr. Operating Trust, No. 09-cv-00028MWK-BNB, 2009 WL 250364, at *1 (D. Colo. Feb. 3, 2009). To do otherwise would
undermine the efficiency interests underlying the order of referral in the first place. Id.
“A stay of a magistrate judge’s discovery order may be appropriate where there is a
serious issue about the propriety of the ruling and where a failure to render a stay could
result in serious, irreversible injury to the party seeking the stay.” Id. at *2. Factors that
may be relevant are:
(1) the likelihood of success on appeal; (2) the threat of irreparable harm if
the stay is not granted; (3) the absence of harm to opposing parties if the
stay is granted; and (4) any risk of harm to the public interest.
COPIC Ins. Co. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 09-cv-00041-WDM-BNB, 2010 WL
935646, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 11, 2010); see also Republic of Ecuador v. Bjorkman, 801
F. Supp. 2d 1121, 1126–27 (D. Colo. 2011) (applying similar standards for appellate

stays from Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 425–26 (2009), to request for stay during
objections to district judge of magistrate’s order); String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus
Shows, Inc., No. 02-cv-01934-LTB-PAC, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (D. Colo. March 30,
2006) (establishing similar factors for general stay of discovery).
Here, the Court finds that the third factor weighs in Plaintiffs’ favor. There are
three months remaining before the discovery cut-off, and this motion concerns only one
portion of the discovery process. There would be little real prejudice to Defendants from
postponing the depositions until after Chief Judge Krieger rules on Plaintiffs’ Rule 72
objections. But the other three factors cut in the other direction. The Court does not
see any strong likelihood of success on the objections. The only purported irreparable
harm is the same harm that Plaintiffs have asserted as to the underlying motions, and
that the Court has found insufficient in that context. Finally, the Court cannot discern
any harm to the public interest from allowing the depositions to proceed in Colorado as
ordered. Accordingly, considering the four factors together, the Court cannot conclude
that “there is a serious issue about the propriety of the ruling and [] a failure to render a
stay could result in serious, irreversible injury to the party seeking the stay.”
Date: June 3, 2015