Hopkins et al v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc.

Filing 19

ORDER granting the parties' joint request to stay the discovery in this case, which was included in their 17 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting, until the Court enters its ruling on the Plaintiffs' 5 First MOTION to Remand to Stat e Court . If the Court denies the motion to remand, then the parties shall confer and submit a proposed joint scheduling order within 7 days of the District Court's ruling. Such order should include date-certain deadlines through the filing of summary judgment motions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 09/22/2014. (jah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
ROGER HOPKINS and ADAM HOPKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CV 114-165

EASTMAN OUTDOORS, INC., d/b/a
CARBON EXPRESS,
Defendant.

)
)
ORDER

On September 11, 2014, the parties filed a Rule 26(f) report in which they jointly requested a
stay of the discovery period, (doc. no. 17, ¶ 5), pending a ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to remand,
(doc. no. 5). Upon consideration, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the request.
The “[C]ourt has broad inherent power to stay discovery until preliminary issues can be settled
which may be dispositive of some important aspect of the case.” Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651,
652 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (quoting Simpson v. Specialty Retail Concepts, Inc., 121 F.R.D. 261, 263
(M.D.N.C. 1988)). Before deciding to stay discovery, the Court should:
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. This
involves weighing the likely costs and burdens of proceeding with discovery. It may be
helpful to take a preliminary peek at the merits of the allegedly dispositive motion to
see if on its face there appears to be an immediate and clear possibility that it will be
granted.
Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652 (internal citation and quotation omitted).
Here, Plaintiff has joined in the request to stay all deadlines, (doc. no. 17), and does not contend
that he cannot properly oppose Defendant’s motion in the absence of discovery. In addition, remand

would obviously change the governing discovery rules and procedures. In the interest in judicial
economy, the Court finds that a stay of discovery is appropriate. See Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652
Thus, the Court hereby GRANTS the parties’ request (doc. no. 17) and will not set discovery
deadlines unless the motion to remand is denied, in which case the parties shall confer and submit a
proposed joint scheduling order within seven days of the District Court’s ruling. Such order should
include date-certain deadlines through the filing of summary judgment motions.
SO ORDERED this 22nd day of September, 2014, at Augusta, Georgia.

4. k4 -,

~
BRIAN K. EF43 S
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DI STRICT OF GEORGIA

2