Thompson v. McNeil-PPC, Inc. et al

Filing 27

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 19 Motion to stay. The Motion is granted only to the extent that the parties shall have until July 30, 2012 to hold the case management conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel B. Toomey on 7/16/2012. (ADM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
CHARLOTTE LEE THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 3:12-cv-611-J-34JBT

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants’ Second Motion to Stay All
Case Management Obligations and Discovery Pending Disposition of Motion to
Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, and Defendants’ Alternative Motion for
Enlargement of Case Management Deadlines (“Motion”) (Doc. 19), and Plaintiff’s
Response thereto (Doc. 25). The Motion seeks to stay all case management
obligations and discovery until disposition of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second
Amended Complaint (Doc. 17), or until after Plaintiff files a viable complaint that is
not subject to further facial attack, or alternatively, to enlarge, by thirty (30) days, the
parties’ deadlines for holding the Rule 26 case management conference and for
filing their joint case management report.1 (Doc. 19.) For the reasons stated herein,
the Motion is due to be GRANTED only to the extent that the parties shall have until
July 30, 2012 to hold their Rule 26 case management conference, and DENIED in

1

The Court agrees with Defendants that the deadline for the case management
conference is July 23, 2012. See M.D. Fla. R. 3.05(c)(2).

all other respects.
In regard to stays of discovery:
[T]he moving party bears the burden of showing good cause and
reasonableness. . . . In deciding whether to stay discovery pending
resolution of a pending [dispositive] motion, the Court inevitably must
balance the harm produced by a delay in discovery against the
possibility that the [dispositive] motion will be granted and entirely
eliminate the need for such discovery.
Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (citation omitted); see also
S.D. v. St. Johns Cnty. Sch. Dist., 2009 WL 3231654, *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 1, 2009)
(same); Allmond v. Duval Cnty., 2008 WL 4833099, *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2008)
(same). In deciding a motion for a stay, “it is necessary for the Court to ‘take a
preliminary peek’ at the merits of the [dispositive motion] to see if it appears to be
clearly meritorious and truly case dispositive.” Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652-53.
Motions to stay “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.” Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652 (citation omitted); S.D., 2009 WL 3231654
at *2 (same); see also Middle District Discovery I.E.4. (2001) at 3 (stating that
“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 I.E.4. (2001) at 3.
Defendants argue that the present Motion should be granted because their

2

Motion to Dismiss “shows that Plaintiff may be unable to craft a viable complaint.
Even if she is able to craft a viable complaint, there is little doubt it will contain fewer
causes of action and thus the scope of permissible discovery will be narrowed.”
(Doc. 19 at 3 (emphasis added).) Defendants assert that their Motion to Dismiss is
meritorious because: (1) the Second Amended Complaint is a shotgun pleading; (2)
its allegations do not rise to the level of plausibility as required under Bell Atlantic
Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); (3) Count III fails because Plaintiff has
not alleged privity with Defendants; (4) joint and several liability was repealed in
Florida; and (5) Plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages is unsupported by specific
factual allegations. (Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiff responds that the Motion should be denied
because, inter alia, the Second Amended Complaint is legally and factually
sufficient, and Defendants will not be burdened with discovery because they are
already producing the same to Plaintiff’s counsel in parallel actions in New Jersey.
(Doc. 25.)
Although the Court recognizes the desirability of eliminating potentially
unnecessary and costly discovery when possible, this case does not present an
appropriate opportunity to do so. The Court has taken “‘a preliminary peek’ at the
merits” of the Motion to Dismiss and concludes that it does not appear “clearly
meritorious and truly case dispositive.” Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652-53. Even
assuming that the Motion to Dismiss has merit, it may not be truly case dispositive
because the granting thereof might not necessarily preclude Plaintiff from attempting
3

to cure any deficiencies in the Second Amended Complaint. In addition, Defendants
acknowledge that their Motion to Dismiss could be granted only in part, which would
allow Plaintiff to proceed on the remaining count(s). Therefore, Defendants have not
met their burden to justify a stay of discovery until disposition of the Motion to
Dismiss. Nevertheless, given the timing of this Order, the Court finds it appropriate
to extend the parties’ deadline for holding their Rule 26 case management
conference to July 30, 2012.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
The Motion (Doc. 19) is GRANTED only to the extent that the parties shall
have until July 30, 2012 to hold their Rule 26 case management conference, and
DENIED in all other respects.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, on July 16, 2012.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

4