Riley et al v. Rutherford et al

Filing 52

ORDER granting 50 Motion to stay discovery until the Court rules on the pending motions to dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 10/15/2010. (BEE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION TIMMY J. RILEY and BARBARA J. RILEY, Plaintiffs, vs. JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, as Sheriff of Duval County, in his individual and official capacity, et al., Defendants. _____________________________________/ Case No. 3:10-cv-644-J-34MCR

ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 50) filed October 13, 2010. Defendants, Peter J. Dearing, Angela B. Corey, and John H. Rutherford, request an Order staying all discovery, including the filing of a case management report, until the Court rules on the pending motions to dismiss. (Docs. 21, 27, 50).1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) recognizes that trial courts have the authority to limit the scope of discovery by court order. Federal courts also have the broad discretion to stay proceedings as part of their inherent authority to control their docket. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). The Eleventh Circuit has held that

Pursuant to Rule 3.01(g), Middle District of Florida, Defendants have attempted to confer with pro se Plaintiffs to determine whether they object to the granting of this motion. To date, Plaintiffs have not responded. See (Doc. 50, p. 4; Doc. 50-C). However, this Court will proceed in ruling as Plaintiffs' responses are unnecessary and would not change the Court's analysis in this regard.
-1-

1

facial challenges to the legal sufficiently of a complaint in a dispositive motion to dismiss should be resolved before discovery begins. Cotton v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 402 F.3d 1267, 1292 (11th. Cir. 2005); see also Moore v. Potter, 141 Fed. Appx. 803, 2005 WL 1600194 (11th Cir. 2005) (upholding the staying of discovery until ruling on the defendants motion to dismiss). Additionally, courts in this circuit have granted such motions to stay where the "resolution on the pending motion to dismiss may extinguish some or all of the claims ... potentially restricting the scope of discovery significantly." United States v. Real Prop., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53997, 2009 WL 1834149, at *1-2 (S.D. Ga. June 25, 2009); White v. Georgia, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79290, 2007 WL 3170105, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 25, 2007). Moreover, staying discovery is warranted when a government official raises an immunity defense. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. (1982); see also Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (stating "such pretrial matters as discovery are to be avoided if possible, as inquires of this kind can be peculiarly disruptive of effective government"). Here, Plaintiffs are suing a sitting judge, a state attorney, a sheriff, and a designated a guardian, in connection with a guardianship proceeding and issuance of an arrest warrant. (Doc. 1). Currently, there are two dispositive motions to dismiss pending before the Court. (Docs. 21, 27). Therefore, the undersigned finds the issuance of a stay in the instant case is appropriate pursuant to both Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and its inherent authority to manage cases pending before it. Accordingly, after due consideration, it is
-2-

ORDERED: Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 50) is GRANTED until resolution of the pending motions to dismiss. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Jacksonville, Florida this 15th day of October, 2010.

MONTE C. RICHARDSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Copies to: Counsel of Record Any Unrepresented Party

-3-