Davis et al v. General Motors LLC
ORDER denying 32 Motion to stay discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 3/6/2018. (BEE)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CHRISTINE DAVIS, ANNA MACIAS
AND LEONARDO MACIAS, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
Case No.: 8:17-cv-2431-T-17AAS
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,
General Motors LLC (“GM”) moves for a stay of discovery, including initial disclosures,
pending the court’s ruling on GM’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. 15). (Docs. 32, 41). The
plaintiffs oppose the stay. (Doc. 34).
District courts have inherent power to control their dockets and manage their cases. Equity
Lifestyle Prop., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing and Landscaping Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir.
2009). This inherent power includes the discretion to stay the proceedings. Andersons, Inc. v.
Enviro Granulation, LLC, Case No. 8:13-cv-3004-T-33MAP, 2014 WL 4059886 at * 2 (M.D. Fla.
Aug. 14, 2014).
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) (citations omitted).
The Middle District Handbook on Civil Discovery Practice states:
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 § I.E.4 (emphasis added). In deciding a defendant’s request
for a stay of discovery pending a ruling on a dispositive motion, “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. When evaluating whether
a motion to dismiss is “clearly meritorious,” courts consider whether “any binding Eleventh Circuit
authority” clearly requires dismissal of the claims. See Meyer v. Diversified Consultants, Inc.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-393-J-34JBT, 2014 WL 5471114, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2014).
A preliminary review of GM’s motion to dismiss reveals that it does not meet the stringent
“clearly meritorious” standard.
After balancing the harm created by a discovery delay against
the possibility that GM’s motion will be granted, the court concludes that the balance tips in favor
of requiring discovery to go forward.
Accordingly, upon consideration, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Stay
Discovery Pending the Dispositive Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 32) is DENIED.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on this 6th day of March, 2018.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?