Diaz v. Inch et al

Filing 47

ORDER Denying 30 MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 6/2/2021. See attached document for full details. (cds)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 20-cv-23889-BLOOM
SCOTTY SANTOS DIAZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. INEZ MARTIN,
WARDEN JOSE COLON,
DR. FRANCK PAPILLON,
Defendants.
/
ORDER ON MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending
the Court’s Ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [30] (the “Motion to Stay”). The
Court has carefully reviewed the Motion to Stay, all opposing and supporting submissions, the
record in this case and the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that
follow, the Motion to Stay is denied.
Plaintiff is a pro se prisoner confined at the Dade Correctional Institution, who alleges that
multiple prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment Rights through the use of excessive force
and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Following initial screening, the Court
determined that Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendant Inez Martin and deliberate
indifference claim against Defendant Warden Jose Colon should proceed. See ECF No. [18]. On
April 13, 2021, Defendants filed their joint Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [29], arguing that
Plaintiff’s excessive force claim is barred by the Heck doctrine, Plaintiff’s claims fail for failure
to exhaust administrative remedies, failure to state a claim, and qualified immunity. See ECF No.

Case No. 20-cv-23889-BLOOM
[29]. In the Motion to Stay, Defendants contend that the Court should stay further proceedings and
discovery in this case until the Court has ruled upon the Motion to Dismiss.
A district 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). Motions to stay discovery
“are not favored because when discovery is delayed or prolonged it can create case management
problems which impede the Court’s responsibility to expedite discovery and cause unnecessary
litigation expenses and problems.” Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997).
“[D]iscovery stay motions are generally denied except where a specific showing of prejudice or
burdensomeness is made.” Montoya v. PNC Bank, N.A., No. 14-20474-CIV, 2014 WL 2807617,
at *2 (S.D. Fla. June 20, 2014). The party moving for a stay of discovery has “the burden of
showing good cause and reasonableness.” Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652.
“While it is not necessary for the Court to, in effect, decide the motion to dismiss to
determine whether the motion to stay discovery should be granted, it is necessary for the Court to
‘take a preliminary peek’ at the merits of the motion to dismiss to see if it appears to be clearly
meritorious and truly case dispositive.” Id. at 652-53. “[A] motion to stay discovery . . . is rarely
appropriate unless resolution of the motion will dispose of the entire case.” Bocciolone v.
Solowsky, No. 08-20200-CIV, 2008 WL 2906719, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 24, 2008). Further,
“discovery stay motions are generally denied except where a specific showing of prejudice or
burdensomeness is made or where a statute dictates that a stay is appropriate or mandatory.”
Montoya, 2014 WL 2807617, at *2. “Ultimately, the proponent of the stay bears the burden of
demonstrating its necessity, appropriateness, and reasonableness.” Ray v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No.
12-61528-CIV, 2012 WL 5471793, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2012).

2

Case No. 20-cv-23889-BLOOM
As an initial matter, the Court does not find that Defendants have demonstrated that
discovery would be unduly burdensome, much less have they made a “specific showing” of
prejudice or difficulty that is required to impose a stay on discovery. See Montoya, 2014 WL
2807617 at *2 (conclusory statements regarding burdensome discovery could not support stay);
Ray, 2012 WL 5471793, at *3 (rejecting stay where defendant “ha[d] not identified in any specific
and tangible way the unreasonable discovery burdens it will face absent a stay”).
Moreover, Defendants’ reliance on Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corporation, 123 F.3d
1353, 1368 (11th Cir. 1997), is misplaced. Chudasama does not state a general rule that discovery
should be stayed pending resolution of a motion to dismiss. Reilly v. Amy’s Kitchen, Inc., No. 1321525-CIV, 2013 WL 3929709, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 31, 2013) (“[T]here is no general rule that
discovery be stayed while a pending motion to dismiss is resolved.”); Gannon v. Flood, No. 0860059-CIV, 2008 WL 793682, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 24, 2008) (Chudasama “does not indicate a
broad rule that discovery should be deferred whenever there is a pending motion to dismiss.”);
Bocciolone, 2008 WL 2906719, at *1 (“[C]ourts have consistently rejected any per se requirement
to stay discovery pending resolution of a dispositive motion.”). In addition, the cases cited by
Defendants to support the contention that a stay is especially warranted when a government official
raises an immunity defense do not state such a general rule either. In fact, “[m]otions to stay
discovery pending ruling on a dispositive motion are generally disfavored in this district.” Flecha
v. Neighbors Moving Servs., Inc., 944 F. Supp. 2d 1201, 1203 (S.D. Fla. 2013); Ray, 2012 WL
5471793, at *3 (explaining that the Chudasama court “confronted a very specific situation
involving a threefold problem — unjustifiable delay by the district court in ruling on the motion
to dismiss, an erroneous decision to compel discovery from the defendant prior to adjudicating the
motion to dismiss, and an especially dubious fraud claim that was likely to be dismissed”).

3

Case No. 20-cv-23889-BLOOM
In addition, the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Pereira v. Regions Bank, 6:12-CV-1383-ORL-22, 2012 WL 5448191, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7,
2012). In deciding whether to grant a stay, the Court must “balance the harm produced by a delay
in discovery against the possibility that the motion will be granted and entirely eliminate the need
for such discovery.” Berry v. Canady, No. 2:09-CV-765-FTM-29, 2011 WL 806230, at *1 (M.D.
Fla. Mar. 2, 2011). Upon review, under the particular circumstances present here, the Court does
not agree that a stay of discovery is warranted.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay, ECF
No. [30], is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on June 2, 2021.

_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Scotty Santos Diaz, pro se
670614
Dade Correctional Insitution
Inmate Mail/Parcels
19000 SW 377th Street
Florida City, Florida 33034

4