Hanley v. TriZetto Corporation

Filing 44

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 3/26/14 Granting 43 Joint Motion to Vacate Supplemental Briefing Schedule and Stay Discovery. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all discovery is STAYED pending resolution of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint [#31]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Trial Preparation Conference set for November 20, 2014, at 10:30 a.m. and the five-day Jury Trial set to begin on December 1, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. are VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the Court denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint [#31], the parties shall file a joint motion to amend the Scheduling Order [#27]. (lgale)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01667-KLM
ELIZABETH HANLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRIZETTO CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Vacate
Supplemental Briefing Schedule and Stay Discovery [#43]1 (the “Motion”). On March
18, 2014, the Court entered a Minute Order [#42] informing the parties that it is converting
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint [#31] filed pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
See Minute Order [#42] at 2. As a result of the conversion of the motion, the Court allowed
the parties the opportunity to file supplemental briefs. Id. In the Motion, the parties inform
the Court that they “are satisfied that they have fully briefed their arguments,” ask the Court
to vacate the schedule set for supplemental briefing, and request a stay of all discovery
pending a ruling on the motion for summary judgment. Motion [#43] at 1-2. The parties

1

“[#43]” 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

further make clear that if the stay is granted and the motion for summary judgment is
denied, they “will file a Joint Motion to Modify the Court’s Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 27)
to set new case deadlines . . . .” Id. at 2. For the reasons stated below, the Motion [#43]
is GRANTED.
I. Analysis
A.

Supplemental Briefing Deadlines
As noted in the Minute Order notifying the parties that the Court would convert the

Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a Rule 56 motion,
Prior to converting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to a Rule 56 motion, the “court
must first notify the parties of the conversion and provide an opportunity to
present all materials pertinent to such a motion under” Rule 56. Alloway v.
Jordan, 69 F.App’x 431, 433 (10th Cir. July 7, 2003) (table decision) (citing
Brown v. Zavaras, 63 F.3d 967, 969 (10th Cir. 1995).
Minute Order [#42] at 2. However, the parties are not required to submit additional
materials or provide additional legal arguments if they are satisfied with the materials
already submitted to the Court. Accordingly, to the extent the parties ask the Court to
vacate the deadlines for the submission of supplemental briefs, the Court grants the
Motion [#43]. The Court will treat the Rule 56 motion as ripe as of the date of this Order.
B.

Stay of Discovery
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

2

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) (finding that 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 staying
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 either party, as they
3

jointly filed the Motion. Therefore, the Court finds that the first and second String Cheese
Incident factors weigh 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. Accordingly, to the extent the
parties seek a stay of discovery, the Court grants the Motion [#43].
II. Conclusion
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#43] is GRANTED. Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all discovery is STAYED pending resolution of
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint [#31], which was
converted to a motion for summary judgment [#42].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Trial Preparation Conference set for November
20, 2014, at 10:30 a.m. and the five-day Jury Trial set to begin on December 1, 2014 at
8:30 a.m. are VACATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the Court denies Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint [#31], which was converted to a motion for summary
judgment [#42], the parties shall file a joint motion to amend the Scheduling Order [#27]

4

that includes: (1) proposed discovery deadlines, (2) a Trial Preparation Conference date2,
and (3) Jury Trial dates, within 21 days of entry of the Court’s order regarding the motion.
Dated: March 26, 2014

2

The parties may jointly call chambers at [phone] to discuss potential Trial
Preparation Conference and Jury Trial dates.

5