Watkins v. Breneman et al

Filing 26

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 3/5/15. Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery # 23 is GRANTED.(lgale, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03266-WYD-KLM
KENNETH WATKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALAN BRENEMAN, individually and in his official capacity as Detective, and
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Stay
Discovery [#23] (the “Motion”). Defendants seek a stay of discovery in this matter until the
pending Motion to Dismiss [#18] is resolved by the Senior Judge.
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
-1-

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, the Court considers the following factors: (1) the
interest of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously 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, 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, staying discovery would not prejudice Plaintiff, as Plaintiff agrees to the
stay. 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
-2-

that proceeding with the discovery process presents an undue burden. Defendants are
correct that proceeding will be wasteful if the Senior Judge grants their Motion to Dismiss
[#18]. If the Motion to Dismiss [#18] is resolved in favor of Defendants, any further
expenditure would be for naught. Further, the defense of qualified immunity is available
to 1) individual governmental officials, but not governmental entities; 2) regarding claims
for monetary damages, but not claims for injunctive or declaratory relief; and 3) regarding
claims against individual governmental officials in their individual capacities, not their official
capacities. Rome, 225 F.R.D. at 643 (citations omitted). Here, Defendant Alan Breneman
asserts that he is entitled to the qualified immunity defense, because he is a government
official, because Plaintiff seeks damages against him, and because Plaintiff asserts claims
against him in his individual capacity. Compl. [#1]. Based on these considerations and
strong Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent regarding assertions of qualified
immunity and discovery, the Court finds that the second String Cheese Incident factor
weighs heavily in favor of staying discovery.
With regard to the third factor, it is certainly more convenient for the Court to stay
discovery until it is clear that the case will proceed. See Chavous, 201 F.R.D. at 5 (stating
that 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 granted, there
will be no need for [further proceedings].”).
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 nor against staying discovery.
With regard to the fifth and final factor, the Court finds that the public’s only interest
-3-

in this case is a general interest in its efficient and just resolution. Avoiding wasteful efforts
by the Court clearly serves this interest. 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’ Motion to Dismiss [#18] is appropriate. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#23] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all discovery is stayed pending resolution of
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [#18].

DATED: March 5, 2015

-4-