Williams v. McKee, et al
Filing
74
ORDER denying 59 Motion to Stay. by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 7/21/2014.(ggall, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Gordon P. Gallagher, United States Magistrate Judge
Civil Case No. 13 – CV – 2546 – PAB - GPG
Robin L. Williams,
Personal Representative of
The Estate of Michael R. Williams, Deceased
Plaintiff,
v.
Fred D. McKee,
Debbie Griffith
And
Delta County, Colorado,
Defendant.
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY (document
#59)
This matter comes before the Court on the following motion, response and reply:
1.
Defendants’ motion to stay discovery (document #59), Plaintiff’s response (document
#67) and Defendants’ reply (document #72).
By Order of reference, (document #60), this matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge.
The Court has reviewed the pending motion, the response, the reply and all attachments. The
Court has also considered the entire case file, the applicable law, and is sufficiently advised in
the premises. Oral argument would not materially assist the Court in adjudicating this motion.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court enters the following Order DENYING Defendants’
motion to stay discovery:
A motion to stay discovery pending determination of a dispositive motion is an appropriate
exercise of this court's discretion. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–255 (1936).
The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the
disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and
for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh
competing interests and maintain an even balance. Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. United States, 282
U.S. 760, 763 (1931).
To resolve motions to stay discovery, this District has adopted the following five-factor
balancing test: (1) prejudice of a stay to plaintiff's interest in proceeding expeditiously; (2) the
burden of discovery on defendant; (3) convenience of the court; (4) interests of third parties; and
(5) the public interest. See String Cheese Incident, LLC. v. Stylus Shows, Inc., 02–CV–01934–
LTB–PAC, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (D.Colo. Mar. 30, 2006). See also, Landis v. North
American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); United Steelworkers of America v. Oregon Steel Mills,
Inc., 322 F.3d 1222, 1227 (10th Cir.2003); Battle v. Anderson, 564 F.2d 388, 397 (10th
Cir.1977).
The underlying principle in determination of whether to grant or deny a stay clearly is that “[t]he
right to proceed in court should not be denied except under the most extreme circumstances.”
Commodity Futures Trading Com'n v. Chilcott Portfolio Management, Inc., 713 F.2d 1477, 1484
2
(10th Cir.1983)(quoting Klein v. Adams & Peck, 436 F.2d 337, 339 (2d Cir.1971). A stay of all
discovery is generally disfavored. See Chavez v. Young Am. Ins. Co., No. 06–cv–02419–PSF–
BNB, 2007 WL 683973, at*2 (D.Colo. Mar. 2, 2007). However, a stay may be appropriate if
“resolution of a preliminary motion may dispose of the entire action.” Nankivil v. Lockheed
Martin Corp., 216 F.R.D. 689, 692 (M.D.Fla.2003). Moreover, lack of subject matter jurisdiction
may be asserted at any time by the court either at the trial or appellate level, and that has been
done on innumerable occasions at all levels of the federal judiciary. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil
Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). A Rule 12(b)(1) challenge is usually among the first issues
resolved by a district court because if it must dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, the accompanying defenses and objections become moot and do not need to be
determined by the judge. Id.
In the instant case, a motion to dismiss (document #20 and subsequent relevant documents) has
been briefed and is pending. In that motion, as one of many potential basis argued to the Court
for dismissal of the action, is a spin off on subject matter jurisdiction. This argument addresses
the issue of whether Plaintiff properly designated Delta County as a Defendant (document #20,
pp. 3-4).
While that specific argument is still pending before The Honorable Judge Brimmer,
this Court issued a recommendation (document #38) on a related motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint (document #31). This Court recommended that the motion for leave
to file a second amended complaint should be granted. Defendant promptly objected to this
Court’s recommendation (document #39). Defendants’ other basis enumerated in their motion to
dismiss do not appear to implicate subject matter jurisdiction.
3
Rule 12(b)(1) empowers a court to dismiss a complaint for “lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). The determination of subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold
question of law which must be decided before the case can move forward. Madsen v. U.S. ex rel.
U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers, 841 F.2d 1011, 1012 (10th Cir.1987). If the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, the entire action will be dismissed. Here, even were a portion of this action
regarding the correct name for Defendant Delta County to be dismissed due to lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, it does not appear that the action would be dismissed as to the remaining
Defendants on that specific basis, e.g.: subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court will now look at the String Cheese factors. In analyzing the propriety of a stay of
discovery this Court acknowledges there is some prejudice to the Plaintiff in delaying discovery,
as is addressed in Plaintiff’s response. Unlike many of the actions cited as precedent for why the
Court should grant this motion, in this case Plaintiff clearly opposes the motion to stay. Plaintiff
claims to have significant additional areas of discovery it wishes to flesh out during the
deposition process.
With regard to the burden on Defendant, certainly there would be some additional burden,
particularly as the remaining discovery appears to be in the nature of depositions. However,
even were the Court to grant the dismissal as to Defendant Delta County on the subject matter
basis, it is entirely possible that one or more of the individual Defendants may remain in this
action. This will be true unless the motion to dismiss is granted in its entirety.
4
Convenience to the Court is not overly implicated in this circumstance. The Court is not being
asked to expend extensive time undergoing such matters as in camera review of documents or
the like. Certainly, there has been some litigation of discovery issues in this matter to date. The
Court expects that the parties will respectfully, responsibly and in a spirit of cooperation move
through the deposition portion of the discovery thus avoiding the discovery problems, perhaps
abuses, that have occurred to date. This means returning telephone calls, talking through issues
like professionals and trying to resolve issues without Court interference.
As to the interests of third parties and the public interest, the last two of the five String Cheese
factors, these do not seem to be implicated except in the most generic sense. There are no known
third parties and this case, while important in the sense that all cases are, is of no great individual
public interest and does not appear to be of significant possible legal precedent. That being said,
sometimes the most unlikely cases set significant future precedent.
After weighing all the competing interests, the Court cannot say that any specific interest is of
substantially greater weight than another. Defendant has an interest, primarily financial, in
staying the discovery so as to not have to defend multiple upcoming depositions. Plaintiff has an
interest in seeing the action proceed expeditiously and getting the discovery it believes necessary
for that purpose. Thus, the Court must fall back on the overriding principal that “[t]he right to
proceed in court should not be denied except under the most extreme circumstances.”
Commodity Futures Trading Com'n supra at 1484. After reviewing all the facts and attendant
circumstances, the Court cannot say that this is an extreme circumstance. Thus, the motion to
stay discovery under these facts and circumstances is denied.
5
Dated at Grand Junction, Colorado, this 21st day of July, 2014.
Gordon P. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?