Rodrigues et al v. SCM I Investments, LLC

Filing 30

ORDER denying 27 Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; granting nunc pro tunc 29 Plaintiff, Suzanne Forte's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendant's Discovery Demands. Plaintiff shall have up to and including July 29, 2015 to respond to Defendant's discovery demands. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 8/3/2015. (ALB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
MICHAELENE RODRIGUES,
SUZANNE FORTE and CHRISTIANE
LEVESQUE, an individual,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 2:15-cv-128-FtM-29CM

SCM I INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution
of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 27), filed on July 8, 2015; Plaintiffs’ Response
in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 28), filed on July 13, 2015; and Plaintiff,
Suzanne Forte’s Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendant’s
Discovery Demands (Doc. 29), filed on July 22, 2015.
As the Case Management and Scheduling Order explains, “[m]otions for an
extension of other deadlines established in this order, including motions for an
extension of the discovery period, are disfavored.” Doc. 23 at 3. While Rule 26,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides authority for the Court to stay discovery,
the moving party bears the burden of establishing good cause and reasonableness.

McCabe v. Foley, 233 F.R.D. 683, 685 (M.D. Fla. 2006). Although not binding, the
Middle District Discovery Handbook also explains that the pendency of motions such

as those filed by Defendant in this action ordinarily does not constitute good cause
for a stay:
Normally, the pendency of a motion to dismiss or a motion
for summary judgment will not justify a unilateral motion
to stay discovery pending resolution of the dispositive
motion. Such motions for stay are rarely granted.
However, unusual circumstances may justify a stay of
discovery in a particular case upon a specific showing of
prejudice or undue burden.
Middle District Discovery (2015) at 5-6.
When determining whether to stay discovery, however, the Court also must
balance the harm produced by any delay with the possibility that the motions will be
granted and eliminate the need for discovery. McCabe, 233 F.R.D. at 685. Thus,
the Court must take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the pending dispositive
motion to see whether it “appears to be clearly meritorious and truly case dispositive.”

Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). To that end, the Court has reviewed the
Complaint, Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs’ response, Defendant’s reply and
Plaintiff’s surreply to determine whether “unusual circumstances” are present,
Defendant has made a “specific showing of prejudice or undue burden” to justify the
stay, and Defendant’s motion is “clearly meritorious.”

The Court concludes that

Defendant has failed to meet its burden in these respects.
Here, Defendant alleges that the scope of discovery may be drastically reduced
following the resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and/or wholly unnecessary
as to the two opt-in Plaintiffs if their claims are dismissed entirely. Defendant’s
assertion that a stay would “spare the parties the potentially unnecessary and
wasteful expenditure of their limited time and resources” is neither specific nor

-2-

unusual. Doc. 27 at 2. Moreover, Plaintiff Michaelene Rodrigues asserts that even
if the two opt-in Plaintiffs are dismissed from this action, she still will need to depose
the former opt-in Plaintiffs in support of her claims, so the amount of discovery to be
completed will not be reduced to the degree Defendant contends. Upon review, the
Court also finds that Defendant’s motion also is not so “clearly meritorious and truly
case dispositive” as to warrant an indefinite stay of discovery and case management
deadlines in this matter.1
The Court also is not inclined to stay discovery so that Defendant may conserve
resources, when it appears that Defendant already has propounded at least some
discovery since filing its motion to dismiss. Defendant’s motion to dismiss was filed
on April 6, 2015. Doc. 11. On July 22, 2015, Opt-in Plaintiff Suzanne Forte filed a
motion for a one-week extension of time to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests,
citing complications and delays from a serious motor vehicle accident in which Ms.
Forte was involved. Doc. 29. Ms. Forte’s motion states that “Defendant served its
First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents … upon
Ms. Forte on or about May 25, 2015.”

Doc. 29 at 2.

Thus, because Defendant

initiated discovery after filing a motion to dismiss, its argument that all discovery

Defendant cites Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corporation, 123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir.
1997), in support of its contention that discovery must be stayed while dispositive motions
are pending. This Court, however, has determined that Chudasama did not stand for such
a broad proposition. See Houston v. 7-Eleven, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-441-FtM-29CM, 2015 WL
412523, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2015) (“Chudasama does not stand for the proposition,
however, that all discovery in every circumstance should be stayed pending a decision on a
motion to dismiss. ‘Instead, Chudasama 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.’”) (citation and quotation marks omitted). The Court therefore
finds this argument unpersuasive.
1

-3-

should be stayed to conserve resources is not well-taken. Opt-in Plaintiff Suzanne
Forte’s request for an extension, despite the insufficient Local Rule 3.01(g)
certification, will be granted, the Court finding good cause for the brief extension.
The parties are cautioned, however, that future motions that fail to comply with the
Local Rules or advise the Court that the certification will be supplemented upon
proper conferral will be denied or stricken.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Defendant's

Motion

to

Stay

Discovery

Pending

Resolution

of

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 27) is DENIED.
2.

Plaintiff, Suzanne Forte’s Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond

to Defendant’s Discovery Demands (Doc. 29) is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. Plaintiff
shall have up to and including July 29, 2015 to respond to Defendant’s discovery
demands.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 3rd day of August, 2015.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-4-