American Homes 4 Rent Properties Eight, LLC ISAOA v. Green

Filing 10

ORDER that Plaintiff's 8 Motion to Stay Pretrial Deadlines and Discovery is granted, pending a ruling on Plaintiff's motion to remand. If the motion to remand is denied, within 7 days of the District Court's ruling the parties shall (1) confer and submit a joint scheduling order, including date-certain deadlines through the filing of summary judgment motions; (2) submit disclosure statements pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.1.; and (3) submit Litigants' Bills of Rights pursuant to Local Rule 16.7. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 06/29/2015. (jah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
AMERICAN HOMES 4 RENT
PROPERTIES EIGHT, LLC, ISAOA,
Plaintiff,
v.

TRACY GREEN, and all others,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_________

CV 115-068

ORDER
_________
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s request to stay commencement of discovery and the
following pretrial obligations pending a ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to remand: (1) conduct a
Rule 26(f) early planning conference; (2) submit a joint preliminary report and discovery
plan; (3) submit a disclosure statement pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.1; and (4) submit a
Litigants’ Bill of Rights pursuant to Local Rule 16.7. (Doc. no. 8). Defendant did not file a
response to the motion, and it is therefore deemed to be unopposed. Loc. R. 7.5. 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, Defendant does not contend that he cannot properly oppose the motion to remand
in the absence of discovery. The Court has also taken a preliminary peek at the motion and
finds there is a clear possibility that it will be granted. Remand would also obviously change
the governing discovery rules and procedures, and thus, the Court finds that a stay of discovery
is appropriate and in the interests of judicial economy. See Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652.
Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request. (Doc. no. 8.) If the motion to remand is
denied, within seven days of the District Court’s ruling the parties shall (1) confer and submit a
joint scheduling order, including date-certain deadlines through the filing of summary
judgment motions; (2) submit disclosure statements pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.1; and (3)
submit Litigants’ Bills of Rights pursuant to Local Rule 16.7.
SO ORDERED this 29th day of June, 2015, at Augusta, Georgia.

2