STEELERS KEYS, LLC et al v. HIGH TECH NATIONAL, LLC et al

Filing 225

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY,denying 196 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 2/17/2021. See attached document for full details. (mee)

Case 1:20-cv-22857-RNS Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2021 Page 1 of 2

United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
High Tech National, LLC and
Automotive Key Controls, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Jay Wiener and others,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 20-22857-Civ-Scola
)
)
)
)

Order Denying Motion To Stay
This matter is before the Court upon the Defendant Sonia Wiener’s
motion to stay the unjust enrichment claim set forth in Count XLV of the
Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. For the reasons stated below, the Court
denies the Defendant’s motion. (ECF No. 196.)
District Courts have broad discretion to stay proceedings in the exercise
of their good judgment. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Here, the
Defendant Sonia Wiener argues the Court should enter a stay because she is
mentioned in only one count of the Plaintiffs’ complaint and because her
liability for unjust enrichment hinges on whether or not the Plaintiffs are able
to prove their case with respect to certain of the other Defendants. (ECF No.
196, at 2.) Ms. Wiener states that requiring her to produce discovery before the
Plaintiffs have proven liability with respect to certain of the other Defendants
would be unjust and warrants a stay. The Court does not agree.
The Court has already determined that the Plaintiffs have stated a
potential claim against Ms. Wiener when the Court denied Ms. Wiener’s motion
to dismiss. (ECF No. 167.) Any discovery sought with respect to Ms. Wiener
must be undertaken in a manner consistent with Federal Rule 26(b) which
requires that discovery be “proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(b)(1). Should Ms. Wiener find that the Plaintiffs’ discovery requests are
abusive in some way, i.e. that they are not proportional to the needs of the case
with respect to the Plaintiffs’ claim against Ms. Wiener, the appropriate course
would be for her to seek a protective order, not to preemptively attempt to stay
these proceedings, necessitating piecemeal and inefficient litigation.
The Court therefore denies Ms. Wiener’s motion to stay. (ECF No. 196.)
The Court also denies Ms. Wiener’s request for a hearing on this matter.

Case 1:20-cv-22857-RNS Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2021 Page 2 of 2

Done and ordered at Miami, Florida on February 17, 2021.
________________________________
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge