Ave Maria University v. Sebelius et al

Filing 36

ORDER denying 31 Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 7/31/2012. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION

AVE MARIA UNIVERSITY,
Plaintiff,
V.

Case No: 2:12-CV-88-FtM-99SPC

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES, HILDA SOLIS,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR, TIMOTHY GEITHNER
and UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery Pending
Resolution of Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #31) filed on July 10, 2012. In this case, the Plaintiff
filed a Complaint challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010’s
Regulatory Mandate requiring group health plans to provide coverage for women’s preventative
care and screenings without cost sharing, which the Plaintiff contends violates their religious
beliefs. (Doc. #1). On May 04, 2012, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction. (Doc. #22). Due to the fact that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is pending, the
Defendants filed the instant Motion, seeking the Court to stay discovery until the Court rules on
the potentially dispositive motion. As both parties have submitted briefs to the Court on the
instant motion, the issue is now ripe for review.

When ruling on motions to stay discovery, Courts in this District have held that
“[m]otions to [s]tay discovery may be granted pursuant to Rule 26(c), Fed. R. Civ. P., and the
moving party bears the burden of showing good cause and reasonableness.” Feldman v. Flood,
176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (citing Howard v. Galesi, 107 F.R.D. 348
(S.D.N.Y.1985)). Moreover, “such motions are not favored because when discovery is delayed
or prolonged it can create case management problems which impede the Court's responsibility to
expedite discovery and cause unnecessary litigation expenses and problems.” Id. (citing Kron
Medical Corp. v. Groth, 119 F.R.D. 636 (M.D.N.C.1988)). “Finally, the Court ordinarily should
not stay discovery which is necessary to gather facts in order to defend against the motion.” Id.
(citing Wilderness Soc. v. Griles, 824 F.2d 4 (D.C.Cir.1987); Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v.
Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir.1985)).
“In deciding whether to stay discovery pending resolution of a pending motion, the Court
inevitably must balance the harm produced by a delay in discovery against the possibility that the
motion will be granted and entirely eliminate the need for such discovery.” Id. In this case, the
Defendants contend that going forward with discovery “would impose a heavy burden on the
Defendants” because of “the large number of other challenges to the preventive services
coverage regulations defendants are litigating across the country.” (Doc. #31, P. 6).
The Defendant relies on Chadsuma v Mazda Corporation, 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir.
1997), for the general proposition that discovery should be stayed until a pending motion to
dismiss is resolved. Chadsuma states: “[f]acial challenges based on the failure to state a claim
for relief, should, however, be resolved before discovery begins. Id. at 1368. However, this
argument fails. Chadsuma does not stand for the proposition that all discovery should be stayed
pending a decision on a motion to dismiss. Koock v. Sugar & Felsenthal, LLP, 2009 WL

2

2579307 * 2 (M.D. Fla. August 19, 2009). “Instead, Chadsuma and its progeny ‘stand for the
much narrower proposition that courts should not delay ruling on a likely meritorious motion to
dismiss while undue discovery costs mount.” Schreiber v Kite King’s Lake, LLC., 2010 WL
3909717 *1 (M.D.Fla. October 1, 2010); Koock, 2009 WL 2579307 at * 2; In re Winn Dixie
Stores, Inc., 2007 WL 1877887 *1 (M.D. Fla. June 28, 2007).
Due to the fact that there are a “large number of other challenges” by similarly situated
plaintiffs, even if the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted, the Defendants will still have to
conduct nearly identical discovery in numerous other cases. Therefore, because the Defendant
will conduct discovery on the issue in this case whether or not the Defendants succeed on their
Motion to Dismiss, the Court finds that the potential “harm produced by a delay in discovery”
outweighs “the possibility that the motion will be granted and entirely eliminate the need for
such discovery”.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
#31) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 31st day of July, 2012.

Copies: All Parties of Record

3