Wolff v. United Airlines, Inc.
Filing
52
ORDER denying 48 Motion to Stay Discovery. The Parties shall continue to abide by deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order in this case. SO ORDERED, by Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews on 9/19/2018. (skclc2, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews
Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00591-RM-SKC
ERIC WOLFF,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY ALL DISCOVERY
Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Stay All Discovery
[ECF. # 48] having been referred to this Court by Judge Raymond P. Moore’s
Memorandum dated August 27, 2018 [ECF. # 49]. The Court has carefully considered the
Motion, the entire case file, and the applicable law. For the following reasons, the Court
DENIES Defendant’s Motion.
Eric Wolff (“Plaintiff”) was an employee of United Airlines, Inc. (“Defendant”). [ECF.
# 27 ¶ 8.] Plaintiff brings claims of negligent and intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, and breaches of implied contract and/or quasi-contract stemming from
circumstances surrounding the termination of Plaintiff’s employment. [Id. at ¶ 1.]
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss [ECF. # 29] which is currently pending before the
Court pursuant to the referral memorandum [ECF. # 30]. Subsequently, Defendant filed
this Motion, which Plaintiff opposes.
1
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for the stay of proceedings
while a motion to dismiss is pending. Instead, Rule 1 instructs that the Federal Rules shall
be “construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action,” and Rule 26(c) permits a court to make any order
necessary to “protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or
undue burden or expense,” including entry of a stay of discovery. In considering whether
to grant a stay:
[the Court] may weigh the following interests: (1) plaintiff’s interests in
proceeding expeditiously with the civil action and the potential prejudice to
plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on the defendants; (3) the convenience to
the court; (4) interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5)
the public interest.
String Cheese Incident, LLC, v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 1:02-cv-01934-LTB-PA, 2006 WL
894955, at *2 (D. Colo. March 30, 2006). Considering these factors, the Court concludes
that stay of discovery in this case is not warranted.
Here, Defendant requests a stay of discovery that could delay the proceedings for
an unknown period of time. Such a delay may significantly impact Plaintiff’s right to pursue
his case and vindicate his claim expeditiously. This is especially true when the stay is
requested, in part, to await the potential filing of an amended complaint, which by his
opposition to this Motion, does not seem a foregone conclusion. In the Court’s view,
halting all discovery to await a filing -- that Plaintiff is under no obligation to file – would
be premature. Such a stay is certainly not in the interests of Plaintiff in proceeding
expeditiously. Additionally, the attendant delay is likely to prejudice Plaintiff, as indicated
by Plaintiff’s opposition to this Motion. Furthermore, the pending motion to dismiss does
not necessitate staying discovery. See Roueche v. U.S., No. 09-cv-00048-WDM-BNB,
2
2010 WL 420040, at *2 (D. Colo. Feb. 1, 2010) (noting that motions to dismiss are,
statistically speaking, more likely to be dismissed, and consequently, “it is more likely than
not” that “a delay pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss would prove unnecessary”).
The Court finds no special burden to Defendant here. In most cases, discovery is
a burden borne equally by both parties as a necessary consequence of our judicial system
and the rules of civil procedure. Finally, the general interests of controlling the Court’s
docket and the fair and speedy administration of justice require that the Motion to Stay be
DENIED.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to stay is DENIED.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 19th day of September 2018.
BY THE COURT:
S. Kato Crews
United States Magistrate Judge
District of Colorado
3
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?