Rosen v. Exact Sciences Corporation et al

Filing 63

ORDER denying 58 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 3/7/2022. (SFC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
NILES ROSEN,
v.

Plaintiffs,

Case No.: 8:19-cv-1526-MSS-AAS

EXACT SCIENCES CORP. and
EXACT SCIENCES LABORATORIES, LLC,
Defendant.
_______________________________________/
ORDER
Defendant Exact Sciences Corporation and Exact Sciences Laboratories,
LLC (collectively, Exact Sciences) moves for entry of an order staying discovery
pending resolution of Exact Sciences’ motion to dismiss relator Niles Rosen’s
False Claims Act complaint (Doc. 21). (Doc. 58). Mr. Rosen opposes the motion.
(Doc. 62).
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,
No. 8:13-cv-3004-T-33MAP, 2014 WL 4059886 at * 2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2014).

1

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 (2021) § I.E.4. 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).
Exact Sciences argues Mr. Rosen’s pending discovery requests are
“premature, voluminous, and inherently burdensome.” (Doc. 58, p. 3). Exact
Sciences also claims its motion to dismiss is “meritorious and dispositive of this
2

case.” (Id. at 4). Exact Sciences argues Mr. Rosen cannot move forward because
Exact Sciences claims Mr. Rosen failed to allege facts sufficient to support the
claim of scienter or the conclusion any payment to Mr. Rosen does not qualify
as an inducement under the False Claims Act. (Id. at 4–5). In Mr. Rosen’s
response to Exact Sciences’ motion to dismiss, Mr. Rosen cited Eleventh Circuit
cases in support of his arguments on scienter and inducement. See (Doc. 44,
pp. 7–9) (listing cases).
A preliminary review of Exact Sciences’ motion to dismiss reveals that it
does not meet the extraordinarily stringent “clearly meritorious” standard.
Exact Sciences also failed to demonstrate prejudice or undue burden if
discovery proceeds. 1 Thus, the balance tips in favor of requiring discovery to go
forward.
Accordingly, Exact Sciences’ Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 58) is
DENIED.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on March 7, 2022.

Exact Sciences claims Mr. Rosen’s pending discovery requests are improper because
they seek privileged or otherwise confidential information. (Doc. 58, p. 8). The court
will consider any arguments related to the relevance, overbreadth, or undue burden
of specific discovery requests upon the filing of a proper motion.
1

3