Ermentraut v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
ORDER granting 29 Motion to Stay. ORDERED that this case is STAYED through December 15, 2014. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Final Pretrial Conference set for February 26, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. is VACATED. The Court will reset the Final Pretrial Co nference, if necessary, after the stay is lifted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before December 16, 2014, the parties shall file either (1) a proposed amended scheduling order or (2) a joint motion requesting extension of the stay. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 10/29/2014.(tscha, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00061-RM-KLM
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois company,
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Stay
Discovery [#29]1 (the “Motion”). In the Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to stay discovery
“through and including December 15, 2014,” Motion [#29] at 3, “[i]n an effort to reduce
possible unnecessary costs and litigation expense” and to provide “Defendant time to
appraise and prepare an estimate of the damage to Plaintiff’s home due to the September
29, 2014 storm.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff then notes that “[s]cheduling order deadlines may be
modified, at the discretion of the Court, upon a showing of good cause.” Id. Plaintiff
analyzes the requested relief applying the factors discussed in Smith v. United States, 834
F.2d 166, 169 (10th Cir. 1987), which governs “whether to extend or reopen discovery . .
. .” Id. Here, however, Plaintiff seeks a stay of discovery. Motion [#29] at 3.
“[#29]” is an example of the convention the Court uses to identify the docket number
assigned to a specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system
(CM/ECF). The Court uses this convention throughout this Minute Order.
“[T]he 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.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see
also Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997). “How this can best be done calls for
the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even
balance.” Id. at 254-55.
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 defendants; (3) the convenience
to the Court; (4) the interests of nonparties; and (5) the public interest. String Cheese
Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 02-cv-01934-LTB-PA, 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, a stay of all proceedings would apparently not prejudice or burden
either Plaintiff or Defendant, as the Motion is unopposed. Motion [#29] at 1. 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
while the parties make preliminary determinations regarding the basis of the litigation. 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 other 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,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#29] is GRANTED.2 Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is STAYED through December 15, 2014.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Final Pretrial Conference set for February 26,
2015 at 10:00 a.m. is VACATED. The Court will reset the Final Pretrial Conference, if
necessary, after the stay is lifted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before December 16, 2014, the parties shall
file either (1) a proposed amended scheduling order or (2) a joint motion requesting
extension of the stay.
Dated: October 29, 2014
The Court notes that on October 17, 2014, Defendant filed its Motion to Exclude
Testimony From John Kezer, Esq. [#26]. Plaintiff’s response is due on November 7, 2014.
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d). Plaintiff does not request a stay of the briefing schedule for that motion
in the instant Motion. Accordingly, the Court does not address the briefing schedule for Defendant’s
Motion to Exclude Testimony From John Kezer, Esq. [#26] in this Order. If the parties wish to
further preserve resources during the stay by suspending briefing of Defendant’s Motion to Exclude
Testimony From John Kezer, Esq. [#26], Defendant may file a motion seeking to withdraw its
Motion to Exclude Testimony From John Kezer, Esq. [#26].
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?