L.C. v. Pinellas County School Board
Filing
66
ORDER granting 50 motion to stay discovery; denying without prejudice all pending discovery motions; denying as moot 52 motion to extend case deadlines; cancelling February 20th discovery conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 2/13/2019. (DMP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
L.C., individually and on behalf of
G.C., a minor,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 8:18-cv-1066-T-23AAS
PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
Defendant.
_________________________________________/
ORDER
Pinellas County School Board moves to stay discovery pending resolution of its
motion to dismiss. (Doc. 50). The plaintiffs agree with the School Board’s request to
stay discovery. (Doc. 63).
A court, for good cause, may stay discovery to protect parties from undue
burden or expense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Panola Land Buyers Ass’n v. Shuman, 762
F.2d 1550, 1558–59 (11th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted). No discovery is necessary to
determine the legal sufficiency of claims or defenses. Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125,
1131 n.2 (11th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).
Disposing nonmeritorious claims
prevents litigants from incurring unnecessary discovery costs. Chudasama v. Mazda
Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367–68 (11th Cir. 1997).
Pleadings govern the scope of discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (allowing
parties to obtain discovery “relevant to any party’s claim or defense”). A court should
1
stay discovery when the scope of discovery under Rule 26(b)(1) could change. See
Chudasama, 123 F.3d at 1368 (discussing how district court hindered the needs-ofthe-case analysis under Rule 26 when the court permitted discovery to continue while
dispositive motion remained pending).
Good cause exists to stay discovery pending resolution of the School Board’s
motion to dismiss. The December 17th order dismissed L.C.’s original complaint
because the complaint failed to plausibly allege a claim for relief under federal law.
(Doc. 34). The December 17th order declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over L.C.’s state-law claims. (Id. at 11). In its current motion to dismiss, the School
Board argues the plaintiffs’ amended complaint also fails to plausibly allege a claim
for relief under federal law. (Doc. 49). No discovery is necessary to determine the
legal sufficiency of the amended complaint’s federal-law claims. Staying discovery
therefore will prevent the parties from incurring unnecessary costs.
Further, the scope of discovery under Rule 26(b)(1) is indeterminable because
the School Board will not answer the plaintiffs’ complaint until after its motion to
dismiss is resolved. So, deciding whether discovery requests are relevant to the
School Board’s defenses is currently impossible.
Staying discovery is particularly appropriate considering the sensitive nature
of this case and current discovery motions. For example, the School Board intends to
depose G.C., the minor sexually assaulted at a Pinellas County school. (Docs. 56, 62).
Requiring G.C. to testify about his sexual assault when the plaintiffs’ amended
2
complaint could be dismissed is unnecessary.
*
*
*
No discovery is necessary to determine the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs’
amended complaint. Without the School Board’s answer, the scope of discovery under
Rule 26(b)(1) is indeterminable. And the sensitive nature of this case weighs in favor
of staying discovery. The following is therefore ORDERED:
1.
The School Board’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its
motion to dismiss (Doc. 50) is GRANTED.
2.
All pending discovery motions (Docs. 43, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58) are DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
3.
The motion to extend case deadlines (Doc. 52) is DENIED AS MOOT.1
4.
The February 20th discovery conference is CANCELLED.
ENTERED in Tampa, Florida, on February 13, 2019.
The School Board stated the motion to extend case deadlines is moot if discovery is
stayed. (Doc. 52, p. 1 n.1).
3
1
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?