Nguyen et al v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, et al

Filing 39

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 8/13/15. Joint Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Early Dispositive Motions # 36 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference set for August 19, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. is VACATED. (lgale, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00639-WJM-KLM
MONG-TUYEN NGUYEN, an individual, and
BRANDI WALLACE, an individual,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin mutual insurance
company, and
USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Texas corporation.
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER
________________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Discovery
Pending Resolution of Early Dispositive Motions [#36]1 (the “Motion”).
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

1

“[#36]” 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.

1

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
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

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 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, a stay would apparently not prejudice Plaintiffs nor burden Defendants
because they jointly request a stay. Motion [#36] 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, 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, 201 F.R.D. at 5 (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].”).
The Court therefore finds that the third String Cheese Incident factor weighs in favor of
staying discovery.
With regard to the fourth factor, the parties assert that there are no nonparties with
3

significant particularized interests in this matter at this stage of the case. Motion [#36] at
3. 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
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 agrees with the parties that a stay is
appropriate in this case. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#36] is GRANTED. This case is
STAYED pending resolution of Defendant American Family’s Motion to Dismiss [#14] and
Defendant USAA General Indemnity Company’s Early Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment [#33].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference set for August 19, 2015
at 10:30 a.m. is VACATED. The Court will reset the Scheduling Conference, if necessary,
after resolution of the pending dispositive motions [##14, 33].
Dated: August 13, 2015

4