Sykes et al v. LivaNova Deutschland GMBH et al

Filing 15

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 1/4/18. Joint Motion to Stay Pending MDLTransfer Decision 13 is GRANTED. (lgale, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 17-cv-02437-KLM
JON SYKES, and
LYNNE WILLIAMS-SYKES,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LIVANOVA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, and
SORIN GROUP USA, INC., a Colorado corporation,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Pending MDL
Transfer Decision [#13]1 (the “Motion”). The parties represent that this matter is set for
a hearing on January 25, 2018, before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (the “JPML”) on the issue of whether to transfer this case to the District of South
Carolina. Motion [#13] at 2. The parties seek a temporary stay of all proceedings until the
JPML rules on the motion to consolidate and transfer this case. Id. at 3. For the following
reasons, the Motion [#13] is GRANTED.
Although a stay of proceedings in a case is generally disfavored, a stay may be
appropriate if an entire action could be resolved. See Wason Ranch Corp. v. Hecla Mining

1

“[#13]” 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.

-1-

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) (stating 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 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)). Additionally, “[a]s a general rule, ‘courts
frequently grant stays pending a decision by the MDL panel regarding whether to transfer
a case.’” Lundy v. C.B. Fleet Co., Inc., No. 09-cv-00802-WYD, 2009 WL 1965521, at *1
(quoting Good v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 5 F. Supp. 2d 804, 809 (C.D. Cal. 1998)).
When exercising its discretion, the Court considers the following factors: (1) the
-2-

interest of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously with discovery and the potential prejudice
to the plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on the defendant; (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)).
With respect to the first and second factors, staying discovery would apparently not
prejudice or impose a burden on any party, as they jointly request the stay. The Court
therefore finds that the first and second String Cheese Incident factors weigh in favor of a
stay.
With respect to the third factor, a stay of discovery would conserve the Court’s time
and resources. It is certainly more convenient for the Court to stay discovery until it is clear
that the case will proceed in this jurisdiction. See Chavous, 201 F.R.D. at 5 (staying
discovery pending decision 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]”). Furthermore, the parties have only requested a temporary stay until the
JPML rules on the motion to transfer and consolidate. Motion [#13] at 3. The Court
therefore finds that the third String Cheese Incident factor weighs heavily in favor of staying
discovery.
With respect to the fourth factor, there are no identified nonparties with significant
particularized interests in this case. Accordingly, the fourth String Cheese Incident factor
neither weighs in favor nor against staying discovery.
With respect 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 a temporary stay of
discovery while the parties await resolution of the motion pending before the JPML is
appropriate. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#13] is GRANTED. Discovery in this
case is STAYED until resolution of the motion pending before the JPML. The parties
shall file a Notice with the Court within 10 days of the issuance of a decision by the JPML.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference set for January 31,
2018, at 9:30 a.m. and all related deadlines are VACATED.

DATED: January 4, 2018 at Denver, Colorado.

-4-