McCullough et al v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd et al

Filing 189

ORDER STAYING MERITS-BASED DISCOVERY AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO TAKE JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 1/11/2017. (zvr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 16-cv-20194-GAYLES
LYNN McCULLOUGH and
WILLIAM McCULLOUGH,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., et al.,
Defendants,
/
ORDER STAYING MERITS-BASED DISCOVERY AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO TAKE JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants Canopy Enterprises, Inc.; EMJO
Investments Limited; Harald Joachim Von der Goltz; John Dalton; Andrew Pierce; and AP Electrical’s Motion to Stay Discovery and/or Motion for Protective Order [ECF No. 132], and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Defer Ruling on Personal Jurisdiction Pending Merits Determination and/or Completion of Jurisdictional Discovery [ECF No. 135]. The Court has reviewed the motions and is
otherwise fully advised in the premises.
Four of the Defendants (EMJO Investments Limited, John Dalton, Andrew Pierce, and AP
Electric) have filed the instant motion to stay discovery until the Court rules on their motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. To prevail on such a motion to stay, a movant must show
“good cause and reasonableness,” and the Court “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.” McCabe v. Foley, 233 F.R.D. 683, 685 (M.D. Fla. 2006). The Court
has considered this balance and is satisfied that these Defendants have shown good cause for and
the reasonableness of a sixty-day stay of merits-based discovery as to them.
Additionally, “district courts enjoy broad discretion in deciding how best to manage the
cases before them,” Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1366 (11th Cir. 1997),
which includes the “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its
own docket,” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 683 (1997). Given the impending fact discovery
deadline in the Court’s most recent Scheduling Order [ECF No. 122], and given that the Court

seeks to avoid piecemeal discovery in this action, the Court shall exercise its discretion and stay
merits-based discovery as to all Defendants for sixty days.
That said, “[a]lthough the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the court’s jurisdiction, the
plaintiff should be given the opportunity to discover facts that would support his allegations of
jurisdiction.” Majd-Pour v. Georgiana Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 724 F.2d 901, 903 (11th Cir. 1984).
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs shall be permitted to take jurisdictional discovery from EMJO Investments Limited, John Dalton, Andrew Pierce, and AP Electric and shall be permitted to amend
their response to those Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction to reflect
any discovered facts that would support their allegations of jurisdiction.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1)

Defendants Canopy Enterprises, Inc.; EMJO Investments Limited; Harald Joachim
Von der Goltz; John Dalton; Andrew Pierce; and AP Electrical’s Motion to Stay
Discovery and/or Motion for Protective Order [ECF No. 132] is GRANTED. All
merits-based discovery in this action is hereby STAYED until March 10, 2017;

(2)

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Defer Ruling on Personal Jurisdiction Pending Merits Determination and/or Completion of Jurisdictional Discovery [ECF No. 135] is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs shall have until March 10, 2017, to conduct jurisdictional discovery as to
Defendants EMJO Investments Limited, John Dalton, Andrew Pierce, and AP Electrical. The Plaintiffs shall then have until March 20, 2017, to amend their response
in opposition to these Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Defendants EMJO Investments Limited, John Dalton, Andrew Pierce, and AP Electrical shall then have until March 27, 2017, to file a reply to this amended response;

(3)

the Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel Discovery and Better Discovery Responses [ECF
Nos. 158-160, 162-166 & 177] are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

(4)

Defendant’ Joint Motion to Compel Medical Examination of Plaintiff [ECF No. 176]
is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 11th day of January, 2017.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE