Reiskin et al v. Regional Transportation District

Filing 103

ORDER; #98 Stipulated Motion to Stay Discovery and Extend Discovery Deadlines for Sixty (60) Days, With Request for Expedited Ruling is GRANTED. Discovery in this case is STAYED through 1/8/06. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadlines listed below are extended as indicated. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification is May 25, 2016, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/12/15.(morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03111-REB-KLM
JULIE REISKIN,
JON JAMIE LEWIS,
WILLIAM JOE BEAVER,
DOUGLAS HOWEY,
DIANA MILNE,
TINA MCDONALD,
JOSE TORRES-VEGA,
RANDY KILBOURN,
JOHN BABCOCK,
KIMBERLEY JACKSON,
PAULINA BLACK,
RUTHIE MCNAIR,
VRLINA NOZLIC,
CHRIS QUINLAN,
CHERYL QUINLAN,
ELAINE CULPEPPER.
BIANCA GAMEL,
KEVIN GRIMSINGER, and
COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER
________________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Stay Discovery
and Extend Discovery Deadlines for Sixty (60) Days, With Request for Expedited

1

Ruling [#98]1 (the “Motion”). In the Motion, the parties ask that discovery be stayed for
sixty days to allow them to engage in private mediation and that all pending deadlines be
extended by sixty days. See generally Motion [#98]. In the Motion, the parties list all
pending deadlines of which they seek extension, discuss the relevant case law, and
request an expedited ruling on the Motion because of upcoming deadlines in the case. Id.
The parties also note that class certification deadline has not yet been set in this case and
propose that the Court set May 25, 2016 as the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for
class certification. Id. at 5.
I. Analysis
A.

Stay of Discovery
Although a stay of proceedings in a case is generally disfavored, the Court has

discretion to enter a stay. Compare Wason Ranch Corp. v. Hecla Mining Co., No. 07-cv00267-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)); with Ellis v. J.R.’s
Country Stores, Inc., No. 12-cv-01916-CMA-KLM, 2012 WL 6153513, at *1 (D. Colo. Dec.
11, 2012) (granting stay of proceedings).

The “[C]ourt has inherent power to stay

proceedings ‘to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and
effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’” Ellis, 2012 WL 6153513, at *1 (quoting
Landis, 299 U.S. at 254 (observing that docket management “calls for the exercise of
judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance”)); Vivid

1

“[#98]” 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.

2

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.”); Chavous v. D.C. Fin. Responsibility & Mgmt.
Assistance Auth., 201 F.R.D. 1, 2 (D.D.C.2001) (“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 marks and citation omitted)); see also String Cheese Incident, LLC v.
Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 05-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) (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 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)).
3

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, the parties state in the Motion that a stay will not prejudice them.
Motion [#98] at 7. Therefore, the Court finds that the first and second String Cheese
Incident factors weigh in favor of staying discovery. With regard to the third factor, it is
certainly more convenient for the Court to enter a short stay of discovery until it is clear
whether the parties wish to proceed with this 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 nonparties with significant particularized interests in this case.
Accordingly, the fourth String Cheese Incident factor neither weighs in favor of 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.
Considering these factors, the Court finds that the proposed sixty-day stay of
discovery is appropriate in this case.
B.

Amendment of the Scheduling Order and Other Case Deadlines
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, “[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified

time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . .” Further, a Scheduling Order
4

“may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b)(4). In this case, the Court finds that the parties’ two-day mediation scheduled with
Ms. Adrienne Fechter establishes good cause for extension of the deadlines set out in the
Motion. As the parties note, they are requesting a short extension of the deadlines and
seek “only to conserve the Parties’ and this Court’s time and resources” while also
“preserv[ing] each Party’s rights should this case ultimately need to move forward towards
trial.” Motion [#98] at 6.
II. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#98] is GRANTED. Discovery in this
case is STAYED through January 8, 2016.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadlines listed below are extended as
indicated:
•

Affirmative Expert Witness Disclosure Deadline

January 25, 2016

•

Deadline to Serve Interrogatories

February 23, 2016

•

Deadline to Serve Requests for Production of
Documents and Requests for Admissions

February 23, 2016

•

Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures Deadline

February 24, 2016

•

Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703, 704 Motions Deadline

March 22, 2016

•

Discovery Cut-Off

March 25, 2016

•

Amendments and Signature for Deposition
Transcripts

January 22, 2016

•

Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

January 21, 2016

5

•

Responses to Discovery Requests:
a. Plaintiffs’ Fifth Set of Written Discovery
b. Plaintiffs’ Sixth Set of Written Discovery
c. Plaintiffs’ Seventh Set of Written Discovery
d. Defendant’s Third Set of Written Discovery

January 7, 2016
January 18, 2016
January 25, 2016
February 1, 2016

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for class
certification is May 25, 2016.
Dated: November 12, 2015

6