Lieblein v. Ersek et al

Filing 72

ORDER. ORDERED that the Motion 62 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all disclosure and discovery is STAYED pending resolution of the Motions to Dismiss [56, 58]. Entered by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 04/20/15.(jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00144-MSK-KLM
Consolidated with 14-cv-00385-MSK-MJW, 14-cv-00451-MSK-CBS, 14-cv-00599MSK-MEH, 14-cv-00641-MSK-BNB, and 14-cv-00708-MSK-CBS
STANLEY LIEBLEIN, derivatively on behalf of THE WESTERN UNION COMPANY, CITY
OF CAMBRIDGE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, and MARTA/ATU LOCAL 732 EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT PLAN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HIKMET ERSEK,
SCOTT T. SCHEIRMAN,
JACK M. GREENBERG,
DINYAR S. DEVITRE,
RICHARD A. GOODMAN,
BETSY D. HOLDEN,
LINDA FAYNE LEVINSON,
ROBERT G. MENDOZA,
SOLOMON D. TRUJILLO, and
FRANCES M FRAGOS TOWNSEND,
Defendants, and
THE WESTERN UNION COMPANY, a Delaware corporation,
Nominal Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Unopposed Renewed Motion to
Stay Discovery [#62]1 (the “Motion”).

1

“[#62]” 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). This convention is used throughout this Order.

-1-

Although the 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. 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);
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 regarding whether to impose a stay, the Court
considers the following factors: (1) the interest of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously

-2-

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, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 1:02-cv-01934-LTB-PAC, 2006 WL 894955, at *2
(D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006) (citing FDIC v. Renda, No. 85-2216-O, 1987 WL 348635, at *2 (D.
Kan. Aug. 6, 1987)).
Regarding the first factor, Plaintiff is not opposed to a stay and therefore presumably
will not suffer any prejudice from the imposition of a stay. Accordingly, the Court finds that
the first String Cheese Incident factor weighs in favor of staying discovery.
With regard to the second factor, the Court finds that Defendants have demonstrated
that proceeding with the discovery process presents an undue burden. Because the
Motions to Dismiss focus on the jurisdictional issue of standing, any discovery may be for
naught should the Motions to Dismiss be granted. Accordingly, the Court finds that the
second String Cheese Incident factor weighs in favor of staying discovery.
With regard to the third factor, if the case remains “in a stagnant state” on the
Court’s docket due to a stay, judicial economy is enhanced, as is convenience to the Court.
In those circumstances, scheduling and discovery issues will not be raised and will not take
time from the Court that could otherwise be used to address other matters. Thus, it is
certainly more convenient for the Court to stay discovery until it is clear that the case will
proceed. See Chavous v. D.C. Fin. Responsibility & Mgmt. Assistance Auth., 201 F.R.D.
1, 5 (D.D.C. 2001) (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

-3-

granted, there will be no need for [further proceedings].”). The Court therefore finds that
the third String Cheese Incident factor weighs in favor of staying discovery.
With regard to the fourth factor, Defendants assert that there are no nonparties with
significant particularized interests in this matter at this stage of the case. Accordingly, the
fourth String Cheese Incident factor neither weighs in favor nor against staying discovery.
With regard to the fifth and final factor concerning the public interest, unnecessary
expenditures of public and private resources on litigation will be minimized by a stay,
judicial resources will likely ultimately be conserved by addressing dispositive issues early
in the litigation, and both judicial and attorney resources will likely be conserved by
clarifying and resolving disputed legal issues at the earliest possible time. Overall, the
public’s interest in the efficient and just handling of legal disputes favors imposition of a stay
in these circumstances. Thus, the fifth String Cheese Incident factor weighs in favor of
staying discovery.
Weighing the relevant factors, the Court concludes that staying discovery pending
resolution of Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss is appropriate. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#62] is GRANTED. Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all disclosure and discovery is STAYED pending
resolution of the Motions to Dismiss [#56, #58].
DATED: April 20, 2015

-4-