Bingham v. BayCare Health System

Filing 49

ORDER denying 47 Motion to stay discovery; denying 47 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on 7/24/2015. (JR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
THOMAS BINGHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:14-cv-73-T-23JSS

BAYCARE HEALTH SYSTEM,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
STAY DISCOVERY AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery and for
Protective Order and Supporting Memorandum of Law. (Dkt. 47.) Defendant moves the Court to
stay discovery in this case pending a ruling by the Court on its Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 37), which
seeks to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for failure to plead plausible and particular
claims for violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., and the Florida False
Claims Act, § 68.082, Fla. Stat. In support of its Motion to Stay, Defendant argues that its pending
Motion to Dismiss raises facial challenges to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and, if granted,
would dispose of the case in its entirety, preventing the unnecessary expenditure of costs and
causing little, if any, prejudice to Plaintiff. (Dkt. 47.) In response, Plaintiff asserts that a discovery
stay would prejudice his ability to prosecute this case. (Dkt. 48.)
Courts maintain great discretion to regulate discovery. Patterson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 901
F.2d 927, 929 (11th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). In exercising this discretion, Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(c) permits a court to stay discovery if the movant demonstrates good cause and
reasonableness. McCabe v. Foley, 233 F.R.D. 683, 685 (M.D. Fla. 2006). However, motions to

stay discovery are not favored because delays in discovery “can create case management problems
which impede the Court’s responsibility to expedite discovery and cause unnecessary litigation
expenses and problems.” Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (citation
omitted); see also Middle District Discovery (2015) at 5–6 (stating that motions for stay are rarely
granted unless unusual circumstances justify such a result based on a “specific showing of
prejudice or undue burden”).
The Eleventh Circuit has held that facial challenges to the legal sufficiency of a complaint
in a dispositive motion to dismiss should be resolved before discovery begins. Chudasama v.
Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1368 (11th Cir. 1997). Nonetheless, this does not establish a
general rule that all discovery in every case should be stayed while a dispositive motion is pending.
In re Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. ERISA Litig., No. 3:04-cv-194-J-33MCR, 2007 WL 1877887, at *1
(M.D. Fla. June 28, 2007). Rather, courts are urged to promptly rule on likely meritorious
motions—and thereby dispose of dubious claims—to prevent undue discovery costs from
becoming excessive. Id.
Accordingly, in deciding whether to stay discovery pending the resolution of a dispositive
motion, the Court must take a “preliminary peek” at the motion to determine whether it appears
clearly meritorious and case-dispositive. McCabe, 233 F.R.D. at 685 (citing Feldman, 176 F.R.D.
at 652–53). The Court must then 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.
Having taken a “preliminary peek” at Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the Court is not
convinced that there is an “immediate and clear possibility” that the motion will be granted.
Although the Court recognizes the interest in avoiding potentially unnecessary and costly
discovery, this case does not present an appropriate opportunity to do so. Defendant is unable to

-2-

meet its burden of showing good cause, as it fails to show any specific prejudice or undue burden
that would result from allowing discovery. Upon consideration, it is
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery and for Protective Order and
Supporting Memorandum of Law (Dkt. 47) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on July 24, 2015.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

-3-