Van Vechten et al v. Elenson et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying 9 Motion to Stay. See ORDER for details. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 7/20/2012. (jky)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 9:12-cv-80668-RNS

JAN VAN VECHTEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
BRIAN ELENSON, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion to Stay Discovery [ECF No. 47], filed
by Defendants Atlas Media Corp., Bruce David Klein, Time Warner Inc., Turner Broadcasting
System, Inc., and Courtroom Television Network, LLC (the “Media Defendants”). Upon careful
consideration, this Motion is denied.
Although the Court has discretion to stay discovery, see McCabe v. Foley, 233 F.R.D.
683, 685 (M.D. Fla. 2006), this District’s Local Rules make clear that a stay of discovery
pending the determination of a motion to dismiss is the exception, rather than the rule. See S.D.
Fla. Local Rules, App. A, Discovery Practice Handbook I.D(5). “Such motions 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). “A request
to stay discovery pending a resolution of a motion is rarely appropriate unless a resolution of the
motion will dispose of the entire case.” McCabe, 233 F.R.D. at 685. “In deciding whether to
stay discovery pending resolution of a pending motion, the Court inevitably 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” – a process that “involves weighing the likely
costs and burdens of proceeding with discovery.” Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652.

Here, the Media Defendants readily admit that “Plaintiffs have not yet served discovery
requests on [them].” Mot. at 2. Yet, the Media Defendants contend a stay is justified because if
and when they are served with discovery, they “will be subjected to an undue burden to the
extent they will be required to spend time and resources responding to discovery on claims that
ultimately may be dismissed.” Id. But the same could be said of every case in which a motion to
dismiss is filed. Such argument fails to demonstrate the type of specific and extraordinary
“prejudice or burdensomeness” necessary for entry of a discovery stay. See Bocciolone v.
Solowsky, 2008 WL 2906719 at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 24, 2008) (Cooke, J.) (quoting S.D. Fla Local
Rules, App. A, Discovery Practices Handbook I.D(5)). Specifically, the Media Defendants have
not identified anything special about their motion to dismiss that would take it outside of the
general rule. Nor have they shown that absent a stay, discovery in this case will turn especially
burdensome. The Court therefore concludes that there is no basis for a stay of discovery at this
time.
Accordingly, it is here by ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Media Defendant’s
Motion to Stay Discovery [ECF No. 9] is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in chambers, at Miami, Florida, on July 20, 2012.

________________________________
HON. ROBERT N. SCOLA, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Magistrate Judge Hopkins
Counsel of record