Romens v. City of Colorado Springs

Filing 20

ORDER granting 18 Unopposed Motion For Protective Order and to Vacate Scheduling Order Deadlines, and staying all discovery, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 12/3/13.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01441-RM-KLM
ALAN J. ROMENS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Unopposed Motion For Protective
Order and to Vacate Scheduling Order Deadlines [#18]1 (the “Motion”). In the Motion,
Defendant requests a stay of all discovery until resolution of the pending motion to dismiss
[#10].
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

1

“[#18]” 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

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);
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
2

348635, at *2 (D. Kan. Aug. 6, 1987)).
In this case, staying discovery would apparently not prejudice Plaintiff, as he 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
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 and fifth factors, Defendant states
that all of the witnesses other than Plaintiff identified in this case are public employees.
Motion [#18] at 5. Defendant argues that those witnesses have an interest in a stay of
discovery so they do not have to endure discovery which “would divert important resources
from public safety and government operations.” Id. Further, “the public interest is served
by preventing the defendants from diverting valuable time and resources that might
otherwise be directed toward their public duties.” Alvarez-Cortez v. Vallaria, No. 11-cv02307-WYD-KMT, 2012 WL 12863, at *3 (D. Colo. Jan. 4, 2012). Accordingly, the fourth
and fifth String Cheese Incident factors weigh in favor of a stay.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#18] is GRANTED. Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all discovery is STAYED pending resolution of

3

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [#10].
Dated: December 3, 2013

4