Hay v. Family Tree, Inc.

Filing 50

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 6/6/17. Second Motion to Stay Case Pending Resolution of the Second Motion to Dismiss 32 is GRANTED. All discovery is stayed pending resolution of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 31 .IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference set for June 8, 2017at 11:00 a.m. and all related deadlines are VACATED (lgale, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 16-cv-03143-CMA-KLM
BETSY A. HAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
FAMILY TREE, INC., a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization conducting business in Colorado,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Second Motion to Stay Case
Pending Resolution of the Second Motion to Dismiss [#32]1 (the “Motion”). Plaintiff
filed a Response [#35] in opposition to the Motion, and Defendant filed a Reply [#44].
Defendant asks the Court to stay discovery in this case until after the pending Motion to
Dismiss [#31] is resolved.2 If granted, the Motion to Dismiss [#31] would dispose of all
claims asserted against Defendant.
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

1

“[#32]” 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.
2

The Motion to Dismiss [#31], filed on April 17, 2017, is referred to the undersigned for
recommendation [#33].

-1-

6, 2007) (unreported decision) (“A stay of all discovery is generally disfavored in this
District.” (citation omitted)); String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 1:02-cv01934-LTB-PAC, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006) (unreported decision)
(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
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
-2-

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)).
With regard to the first String Cheese Incident factor, Plaintiff argues that staying
discovery would further delay the resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims based on events that
occurred in 2014. Response [#35] at 2. Thus, this factor weighs against the imposition of
a stay.
With regard to the second factor, the Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated
that proceeding with the discovery process presents an undue burden. This issue concerns
whether Defendant will be unfairly burdened if discovery proceeds before rulings are issued
on the pending dispositive motion. 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 motion; however, the Court
recognizes that proceeding with discovery would be wasteful should the Motion to Dismiss
[#31] be granted. Thus, this factor weighs 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]”). Thus, this factor weighs in favor of staying
-3-

discovery.
With regard to the fourth factor, Defendant argues that the nature of this dispute
involving Plaintiff’s employment will involve significant efforts concerning others who are
not party to this lawsuit. Motion [#32] at 5. Plaintiff does not respond to this argument.
Defendant’s contention is well-taken, as Plaintiff names various employees allegedly
involved in decisions related to her employment and states in the Proposed Scheduling
Order that she wishes to depose several of those employees. See, e.g., Second Am.
Compl. [#13] at 6, 9, 11; Proposed Sched. Order [#47] at 11. Thus, the fourth String
Cheese Incident factor weighs in favor of 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 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 [#31] is appropriate. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Stay [#32] is GRANTED. All discovery
is stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [#31].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference set for June 8, 2017,
at 11:00 a.m. and all related deadlines are VACATED. The Scheduling Conference shall
be reset, if necessary, after resolution of the Motion to Dismiss [#31].

-4-

DATED: June 6, 2017 at Denver, Colorado.

-5-