Chico v. Dunbar Armored, Inc.
ORDER granting 20 Defendant's Motion to Stay; granting 20 Defendant's Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres on 10/6/2017. (js02)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 17-22701-Civ-WILLIAMS/TORRES
ADELAIDA CHICO, and others similarly
Situated under 20 U.S.C. 216(b),
DUNBAR ARMORED, INC.,
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO STAY DISCOVERY AND FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Dunbar Armored, Inc.’s (“Defendant”)
motion to stay discovery and for a protective order against Adelaida Chico
(“Plaintiff”). [D.E. 20]. Specifically, Defendant requests that the Court (1) stay all
discovery pending the outcome of a settlement conference currently set for
November 1, 2017, (2) grant a protective order as to Plaintiff’s one hundred and
twenty-four requests for production of documents, and (3) grant a protective order
relieving Defendant from producing a corporate representative to testify on certain
topics. Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s motion on September 19, 2017 [D.E. 25]
to which Defendant replied on October 3, 2017. [D.E. 26]. Therefore, Defendant’s
motion is now ripe for disposition.
After careful consideration of the motion,
response, reply, relevant authority, and for the reasons discussed below,
Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.
On July 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed this action alleging that she and other
unidentified similarly situated employees are owed unpaid overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed a statement of
claim asserting that she seeks overtime compensation for 280 hours of overtime
work, which she calculates to be $5,594.40 plus liquidated damages for a total of
$11,188.80, excluding attorneys’ fees and costs. [D.E. 9]. The Court entered an
Order on July 20, 2017 requiring the parties to participate in a settlement
conference by no later than September 25, 2017.
Because the parties were unavailable on several proposed dates, the
settlement conference is now scheduled for November 1, 2017. On August 11, 2017,
Defendant served Plaintiff with a set of documents in preparation for the settlement
conference, including all payroll records and sign-in/time sheets related to Plaintiff’s
claim. Plaintiff then served a first request for production of documents consisting of
one hundred and twenty four individual requests, as well as a first request for
admissions and a first set of interrogatories.
On September 14, 2017, Plaintiff
unilaterally noticed a 30(b)(6) corporate deposition for November 3, 2017 and
proffered a set of topics that Defendant believes are overbroad and irrelevant. The
current deadline for the parties to complete discovery is April 30, 2018. [D.E. 18].
APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES AND LAW
The Court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its
power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); Landis
v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is
incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the
causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for
litigants.”); Chrysler Int’l Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2002)
(“At the outset, we stress the broad discretion district courts have in managing their
cases.”); Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Georgia, 263 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th
Cir. 2001) (“[W]e accord district courts broad discretion over the management of
pre-trial activities, including discovery and scheduling.”). Additionally, “[m]atters
pertaining to discovery are committed to the sound discretion of the district court.”
Patterson v. United States Postal Serv., 901 F.2d 927, 929 (11th Cir. 1990).
To prevail on a motion to stay, Defendant must demonstrate reasonableness
and good cause. “While overall stays of discovery may be rarely granted, courts
have held good cause to stay discovery exists wherein ‘resolution of a preliminary
motion may dispose of the entire action.”’ Nankivil v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 216
F.R.D. 689, 692 (M.D. Fla.), aff’d, 87 F. App’x 713 (11th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added)
(quoting Association Fe Y Allegria v. Republic of Ecuador, 1999 WL 147716
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 1999)); see also Patterson, 901 F.2d at 927 (holding district court
did not abuse its discretion by staying discovery where pending dispositive motions
gave court enough information to ascertain further discovery not likely to produce a
genuine issue of material fact); Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651 (M.D. Fla. 1997)
(holding stay of discovery not appropriate unless pending dispositive motion would
dispose of entire action); Spencer Trask Software and Information Services, LLC v.
Rpost International Limited, 206 F.R.D. 367 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (holding good cause for
discovery stay exists where dispositive motion has been filed and stay is for short
time period that does not prejudice opposing party); Simpson v. Specialty Retail
Concepts, Inc., 121 F.R.D. 261 (M.D.N.C. 1988) (setting up balancing test for stays
In the absence of a dispositive motion, courts have also granted motions to
stay in consideration of the following factors: “(1) whether the litigation is at an
early stage; (2) whether a stay will unduly prejudice or tactically disadvantage the
non-moving party; (3) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and
streamline the trial; and (4) whether a stay will reduce the burden of litigation on
the parties and on the court.” Grice Eng’g, Inc. v. JG Innovations, Inc., 691 F. Supp.
2d 915, 920 (W.D. Wis. 2010) (citing Tap Pharmaceautical Products, Inc. v. Atrix
Laboratories, Inc., 2004 WL 422697, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3, 2004); Baxter
International, Inc. v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., 2008 WL 4395854, at
*3 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 25, 2008)).
One of the circumstances that have sometimes satisfied the aforementioned
factors is the possibility of avoiding unnecessary expenses while the parties engage
in mediation or settlement discussions that might conserve the parties’ resources
and promote judicial economy. See, e.g., ArrivalStar, S.A. v. Blue Sky Network,
LLC, 2012 WL 588806, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2012) (“The Court concludes that
Blue Sky has shown good cause to justify a stay of discovery pending mediation.
The Court finds that staying discovery pending mediation will conserve the
resources of the parties and will not impose an inequity on any party.”); see also
Advanced Bodycare Sols., LLC v. Thione Int’l, Inc., 524 F.3d 1235, 1241 (11th Cir.
2008) (“[D]istrict courts have inherent, discretionary authority to issue stays in
many circumstances and granting a stay to permit mediation (or to require it) will
often be appropriate.”).
Furthermore, “Rule 26(c) allows the issuance of a protective order if ‘good
cause’ is shown. In addition to requiring good cause, this circuit has also required
the district court to balance the interests of those requesting the order. A ‘district
court must articulate its reasons for granting a protective order sufficient for
appellate review.”’ McCarthy v. Barnett Bank of Polk Cty., 876 F.2d 89, 91 (11th
Cir. 1989) (citations omitted); see also Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Southeast Floating
Docks, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 426, 429–30 (M.D. Fla. 2005) (“Rule 26(c) provides that upon
a showing of good cause, a court ‘may make any order which justice requires to
protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue
burden or expense.’
The party seeking a protective order has the burden to
demonstrate good cause, and must make ‘a particular and specific demonstration of
fact as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements’ supporting the
need for a protective order.”) (citations omitted).
It is well settled that “[t]he litigant seeking the protective order must
articulate the injury with specificity.”
United States v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 187
F.R.D. 152, 158 (D. Del. 1999) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Garrett,
571 F.2d 1323, 1326 n. 3 (5th Cir. 1978) (finding that a party seeking a protective
order must show not just speculative harm but must make a “particular and specific
statements”) (citations omitted); see also Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 187 F.R.D. at 158
(“‘Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples,’ do not support
a showing for good cause.”) (quoting Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108,
1121 (3d Cir. 1986)). “In other words, the party seeking the protective order must
show good cause by demonstrating a particular need for protection” because
“[b]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated
reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.”
Trinos v. Quality Staffing Servs.
Corp., 250 F.R.D. 696, 698 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (citing Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.,
785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986)); see also Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Mfg.
Corp., 481 F.2d 1204, 1212 (8th Cir. 1973).
Defendant’s motion seeks a stay of all discovery until the parties participate
in a November 1, 2017 settlement conference. Defendant argues that a stay is
warranted because of the exorbitant cost of responding to Plaintiff’s discovery
requests – and continuing motion practice – will likely exceed the total value of the
case represented in Plaintiff’s statement of claim.
Defendant suggests that
requiring responses prior to the settlement conference is unreasonable and will
unnecessarily force Defendant to incur significant discovery fees and costs that
otherwise could be used towards the settlement of Plaintiff’s claim. Defendant also
contends that the documents and information sought in Plaintiff’s one hundred and
twenty-four requests for production have little to no relevance to the claims in this
case and are unnecessary to enable the parties to reach an informed resolution at
the settlement conference.1 Because a stay of discovery will allegedly not prejudice
either party with a discovery deadline of April 30, 2018, Defendant attests that
there is ample time to complete discovery if the upcoming settlement conference
results in an impasse.
We agree with Defendant that a short stay of discovery of less than one
month will allow for the parties to mediate this case and conserve expenses for the
benefit of both parties.
Plaintiff disagrees because staying this action will
purportedly cause her prejudice with respect to the scheduling of depositions.2 Yet,
Plaintiff does not articulate that position with any clarity, especially since any
prejudice that might result is significantly reduced by the brevity of the requested
stay and the large amount in costs and fees that Plaintiff and Defendant could save
Defendants note that they have already provided Plaintiff with payroll and
other relevant documents in compliance with the Court’s Order [D.E. 5] and that a
stay will conserve judicial resources and avoid unnecessary attorneys’ fees.
Defendant suggests that Plaintiff has attempted to frustrate the discovery
process by unilaterally setting depositions. While we will not discuss this topic at
length, the unilateral scheduling of depositions is highly disfavored because it leads
to unnecessary costs, attorneys’ fees, and motion practice. In scheduling future
depositions, neither party may unilaterally set any depositions in this case without
prior leave of court. A failure to adhere to this requirement may result in sanctions.
in the event a settlement is reached. See ArrivalStar, S.A., 2012 WL 588806, at *2
(“The Court finds that staying discovery pending mediation will conserve the
resources of the parties and will not impose an inequity on any party.”).
Therefore, the Court concludes that Defendant has shown good cause to
justify a stay. Defendant has persuasively demonstrated that the anticipated cost
and burden of the discovery process will likely far exceed the merits of Plaintiff’s
claim. Moreover, Defendant appears optimistic that the entire discovery process
may be avoided with the early resolution of this case. Though it is by no means
certain that the settlement conference will successfully resolve the dispute between
the parties, staying discovery for approximately 25 days will not disadvantage
anyone with a discovery cutoff on April 30, 2018. As such, Defendant’s motion to
stay this case until the conclusion of the settlement conference on November 1, 2017
is well taken and therefore GRANTED. See Curwen v. Dynan, 2012 WL 1237643,
at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 12, 2012) (“The Court concludes that the Firm has shown
good cause to justify a stay of discovery pending mediation.
A short stay of
discovery pending mediation could conserve the resources of the parties and will not
impose an inequity on any party.”).
Because this action is stayed until November 1, 2017, there is no need for
Defendant to respond at this time to Plaintiff’s 124 requests for production of
If this case does not resolve itself at the upcoming settlement
conference or better yet earlier, a hearing will be set on the Court’s discovery
calendar to determine which requests, if any, are improper. As for the parties’
dispute on the topics to be discussed at the 30(b)(6) deposition, that issue will also
be resolved, if necessary, in conjunction with Plaintiff’s request for documents.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
Defendant’s motion [D.E. 20] is GRANTED.3
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 6th day of
/s/ Edwin G. Torres
EDWIN G. TORRES
United States Magistrate Judge
As for Plaintiff’s request for sanctions, Plaintiff suggests that Defendant has
engaged in bad faith tactics throughout this case. Yet, Plaintiff fails to support this
argument with any reasoning or factual support. Plaintiff only makes a conclusory
assertion and cites decisions discussing Rule 37. Because Plaintiff’s request is
devoid of any substantive content, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
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?