Hedin v. Amedisys Holding, L.L.C. et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting 16 Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings. The Scheduling Conference set for 12/12/2013 at 10:00 a.m. is VACATED and RESET to 2/18/2014 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom C-204 of the Byron G. Rogers United States Courthouse, 1929 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado. The parties shall submit the proposed scheduling order no later than 2/11/2014. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/19/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02150-REB-KLM
PAUL HEDIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMEDISYS HOLDING, L.L.C., and
AMEDISYS WESTERN, L.L.C.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Stay
Proceedings [#16] (the “Motion”). Plaintiff asks the Court to stay this case in its entirety
pending Plaintiff’s exhaustion of his administrative remedies under ERISA. Plaintiff asserts
that exhaustion of those remedies may either resolve the entire case or allow the claims
to move forward on the merits.
Although the stay of proceedings in a case is generally disfavored, the Court has
discretion to stay discovery while a dispositive issue 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. 1:02-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-

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, the Court considers the following factors: (1) the
interest of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously with discovery and the potential prejudice
to the plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on the defendants of proceeding with discovery;
(3) the convenience to the Court of staying discovery; (4) the interests of nonparties in
either staying or proceeding with discovery; and (5) the public interest in either staying or
proceeding with discovery. String Cheese Incident, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (citing FDIC
v. Renda, No. 85-2216-O, 1987 WL 348635, at *2 (D. Kan. Aug. 6, 1987) (unreported
decision)).
Regarding the first two factors, the Court finds that staying the case would neither
-2-

prejudice Plaintiff nor present an undue burden on Defendants as all have agreed to stay
the case. The Court therefore finds that the first and second String Cheese Incident factors
weigh in favor of staying this matter.
With regard to the third factor, it is certainly more convenient for the Court to stay
this matter until it is clear that the case will proceed. See Chavous, 201 F.R.D. at 5 (stating
that staying discovery pending decision on a dispositive motion that would fully resolve the
case “furthers the ends of economy and efficiency, since if [the motion] is granted, there
will be no need for [further proceedings].”). Thus, the third String Cheese Incident factor
weighs in favor of staying this matter.
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 staying this matter.
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 clearly serves this interest. Thus, the fifth String Cheese Incident factor
weighs in favor of staying this matter.
Weighing the relevant factors, the Court concludes that staying this matter is
appropriate. Plaintiff seeks a maximum of a sixty-day stay but will inform the Court if a
decision is made by the plan administrator before that time expires. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#16] is GRANTED. This matter is
STAYED for a maximum of sixty days, through January 17, 2014.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a Motion to Lift Stay within seven

-3-

days of the plan administrator issuing a decision on this matter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference set for December 12,
2013 at 10:00 a.m. is VACATED and RESET to February 18, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. in
Courtroom C-204 of the Byron G. Rogers United States Courthouse, 1929 Stout Street,
Denver, Colorado.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit their proposed scheduling
order pursuant to the District of Colorado Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) Procedures. The
parties shall submit the proposed scheduling order no later than February 11, 2014.

Dated: November 19, 2013

-4-