Inniss et al v. Aderhold et al

Filing 40

Unopposed MOTION to Stay Proceedings Until Such a Time That The Court Rules on the Pending Motion To Dismiss and Brief in Support by Deborah Aderhold. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Orland, Devon)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER INNISS
et al,

*
*
*
Plaintiffs,
*
*
v.
*
CIVIL ACTION NO.
*
1:14-CV-01180-WSD
DEBORAH ADERHOLD, et al, *
*
Defendants.
*
__________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANT DEBORAH ADERHOLD’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO
STAY PROCEEDINGS UNTIL SUCH A TIME THAT THE COURT
RULES ON THE PENDING
MOTION TO DISMISS and BRIEF IN SUPPORT
__________________________________________________________________
COMES NOW, Defendant Deborah Aderhold1, State Registrar and Director
of Vital Records for the Georgia Department of Public Health (“Registrar
Aderhold”), by and through counsel, the Attorney General of the State of Georgia
unopposed by Plaintiffs and hereby moves to stay proceedings until such a time
that the Court rules on her pending motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint.
I.

ARGUMENT AND CITATION TO AUTHORITIES

Defendant Aderhold recognizes that the Plaintiffs have amended their complaint
adding additional parties and that the new Defendant will need to file a response to
the complaint.
1

Rule 26(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides the Court with
broad discretion to alter the sequence of discovery “for the convenience of the
parties . . . and in the interests of justice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). See also Panola
Land Buyers Ass’n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1558-59 (11th Cir. 1985) (court has
“broad discretion to stay discovery until the district court rules on a pending
dispositive motion”); Transunion Corp. v. PepsiCo, Inc., 811 F.2d 127, 130 (2nd
Cir. 1987) (staying discovery pending determination of motion to dismiss).
In the interests of efficiency and justice, this Court should exercise its
discretion under Rule 26 to stay proceedings and relieve the parties from having to
exert additional resources pending a final ruling on the pending motion. See
Patterson v. United States Postal Serv., 901 F.2d 927, 929 (11th Cir. 1990) (trial
court properly stayed discovery pending resolution of motion to dismiss);
Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997) (holding
that “facial challenges to the legal sufficiency of the claim or defense, such as a
motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim for relief, should be resolved
before discovery begins”).
An order staying proceedings will protect the parties from the burden of
conducting unnecessary and expensive discovery should a motion to dismiss be
granted. Further, as Plaintiffs have brought a facial challenge to a state statute,
there is little to no benefit to an early conference (L.R. 16.1). Even if only partially
2

granted, a motion to dismiss would substantially narrow the claims that survive and
establish the proper scope of discovery for what remains of Plaintiffs’ claims. The
parties will have been relieved of expending additional time, effort, and resources
on any and all claims that the Court may dismiss or that Plaintiffs may choose not
to pursue.
II.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court stay
proceedings in this matter until the motion to dismiss is fully adjudicated. If the
Court ultimately does not dismiss the Complaint in its entirety, it is requested that a
scheduling/discovery order be entered at that time.

Respectfully submitted, this 5th day of August, 2014.
SAMUEL S. OLENS
Attorney General

551540

/s/NELS PETERSON
Solicitor General

101074

KATHLEEN M. PACIOUS
Deputy Attorney General

558555

/s/Devon Orland
554301
Senior Assistant Attorney General

3

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(D), I hereby certify that the foregoing has been
prepared in compliance with Local Rule 5.1(B) in 14-point New Times Roman
type face.
This 5th day of August, 2014.

/s/Devon Orland
DEVON ORLAND
554301
Senior Assistant Attorney General

40 Capitol Square, S. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334-1300
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing UNOPPOSED
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND DRAFT ORDER with the Clerk
of Court using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send email
notification of such filing to all CM/ECF participants of record, including the
following:
David P. Draigh, White & Case, LLP -FL
[e-mail]
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell, Lambda Legal
[e-mail]

Douglas E. Winter, Bryan Cave, LLP-DC
[e-mail]
Gregory R. Nevins, Lambda Legal Defense and
Education Fund, Inc.-GA
[e-mail]
Jennifer Burch Dempsey, Bryan Cave, LLP-ATL Jennifer Devine Odom, Bryan Cave, LLP-ATL
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Luke A. Lantta, Bryan Cave, LLP-ATL
Susan L. Sommer, Lambda Legal Defense and
[e-mail]
Education Fund, Inc.-NY
[e-mail]
Tara L. Borelli, Lambda Legal Defense and
William Vance Custer , IV, Bryan Cave, LLPEducation Fund, Inc.-GA
ATL
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Frank E. Jenkins , III, Jenkins & Bowen, P.C.
Michael Van Stephens , II, Gwinnett County
[e-mail]
Law Department
[e-mail]
Robert Lige Walker, Jenkins & Bowen, P.C.
Diana L. Freeman, Fulton County Attorney's
[e-mail]
Office
[e-mail]
Kaye Woodard Burwell, Office of the Fulton
R. David Ware, Office of Fulton County
County Attorney
Attorney
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
This 5th day of August, 2014.
/s/Devon Orland
DEVON ORLAND
554301
Senior Assistant Attorney General