Warad West LLC et al v. Sorin CRM USA Inc et al
ORDER; 64 Joint Motion to Stay Discovery and Continue Scheduling Conference Pending Resolution of Motions to Dismiss First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that discovery in this matter is STAYED pendingresolution of the Motio ns to Dismiss [#56, #57]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference set for November 4, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. is VACATED. It shall be rest, if necessary, after resolution of the Motions to Dismiss [#56, #57], by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 10/29/15.(morti, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03242-WJM-KLM
WARAD WEST LLC, and
SORIN CRM USA INC.,
SORIN GROUP USA INC.,
SORIN GROUP ITALIA SRL, and
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Discovery and
Continue Scheduling Conference Pending Resolution of Motions to Dismiss First
Amended Complaint [#64]1 (the “Motion”). The parties ask the Court to stay discovery
pending resolution of the Motions to Dismiss [#56, #57], filed October 5, 2015. For the
reasons stated below, the Motion [#64] is GRANTED.
This Court has long noted that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly
provide for a stay of proceedings in a lawsuit. String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows,
Inc., No. 02-cv-01934-LTB-PAC, 2006 WL 894955 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006). However, the
Court has construed Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) to permit a stay of discovery “for good cause, to
“[#64]” 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.
protect a party from undue burden or expense,” especially when dispositive motions are
pending. Id. The party who seeks a stay of discovery has the burden of demonstrating
good cause, and “cannot sustain that burden by offering simply conclusory statements.”
Tr. of Springs Transit Co. Emp.’s Ret. & Disability Plan v. City of Colorado Springs, No. 09cv-02842-WYD-CBS, 2010 WL 1904509, at *4 (D. Colo. May 11, 2010). Generally, the
Court requires a “particular and specific demonstration of fact” in support of a request for
a stay. Id.; see also Christou v. Beatport, LLC, No. 10-cv-02912-CMA-KMT, 2011 WL
650377, at *1 (D. Colo. Feb. 10, 2011). In the context of ruling on a motion to stay, the
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals stated almost thirty years ago that “the right to proceed in
court should not be denied except under the most extreme circumstances.” Commodity
Futures Trading Comm’n v. Chilcott Portfolio Mgmt., Inc., 713 F.2d 1477, 1484 (10th Cir.
1983). Hence, it has long been recognized that stays are generally disfavored in this
district, although the decision to grant or deny them invokes the discretion of the Court
under the circumstances at issue. See, e.g., id.
Precedent amply demonstrates that the Court has broad discretion to stay an action
when a dispositive motion is pending. String Cheese Incident, LLC, 2006 WL 894955 at
*2 (finding that a thirty-day stay of discovery was appropriate when a motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction was pending). Indeed, “a court may decide that in a particular
case it would be wise to stay discovery on the merits until [certain challenges] have been
resolved.” 8 Charles Allen 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.”); see also 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.”); Nankivil v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 216 F.R.D. 689, 692
(M.D. Fla. 2003) (holding that a stay is appropriate if “resolution of a preliminary motion
may dispose of the entire action”).
Finally, the factors to be applied by the Court in determining the propriety of a stay
are: (1) Plaintiffs’ interests in proceeding expeditiously with the action and the potential
prejudice to Plaintiffs resulting from a delay; (2) the burden on the Defendants; (3) the
convenience to the Court; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the litigation; and (5)
the public interest. String Cheese Incident, LLC, 2006 WL 894955 at *2.
1. Plaintiffs’ Interests
Because Plaintiffs jointly move with Defendants for a stay to be imposed by the
Court, Plaintiffs’ interests are protected, and this factor weighs in favor of imposing a stay.
2. Defendants’ Burden
This issue concerns whether Defendants will be unfairly burdened if discovery
proceeds before rulings are issued on the pending dispositive motions. See, e.g., String
Cheese Incident, LLC, 2006 WL 894955 at *2 (“defendants, however, also would
undoubtedly be prejudiced if they were forced to engage in discovery if the court eventually
granted their motion to dismiss”). The Court is not inclined to prejudge the merits of the
dispositive motions here; however, the Court recognizes that proceeding with discovery
would be wasteful should the Motions to Dismiss be granted, especially as they may
dispose of the entire case. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of imposing a stay.
3. Convenience to the Court
Entry of a stay may cause significant delay of the resolution of this matter, which in
turn makes the Court’s docket less predictable and less manageable. Moreover, the
District Judge discourages litigation strategy or conduct that results in delaying the progress
of litigation, including the filing of motions for extensions of time, motions for continuances
of hearings, and dispositive motions generally. See WJM Practice Standards §§ II.D, III.D,
III.E (Dec. 1, 2014). This factor weighs against the entry of a stay.
4. Interest of Non-Parties
The parties do not identify any specific non-parties with significant particularized
interests in this matter. The Court finds that this factor is neutral.
5. The Public Interest
The public interest at stake here is the same interest underlying all lawsuits: that
they be resolved as fairly and quickly as possible. In light of the issues outlined above, the
Court finds that considerations of fairness and timeliness will be advanced by imposition
of a stay. Hence, this factor weighs in favor of entry of a stay.
Application of the String Cheese factors, results in the conclusion that an imposition
of a stay of discovery is justified in this case. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#64] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that discovery in this matter is STAYED pending
resolution of the Motions to Dismiss [#56, #57].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference set for November 4,
2015 at 10:30 a.m. is VACATED. It shall be reset, if necessary, after resolution of the
Motions to Dismiss [#56, #57].
Dated: October 29, 2015
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?