Stewart v. McBride et al

Filing 15

ORDER granting Defendants' 10 Motion to Stay; staying all discovery in this action pending resolution of Defendants' motion to dismiss by the presiding District Judge; and ordering that the parties shall confer as required by Local Rule 26.1 within seven days of the District Judge's ruling on the motion to dismiss, and within fourteen days of the ruling, they shall submit a joint Rule 26 (f) Report. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 6/15/2016. (jah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
DONTE STEWART,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM McBRIDE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
CV 116-021
)
)
)
)
_________
ORDER
_________

Defendants filed an unopposed motion to stay discovery, including the deadlines set
forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court, pending
resolution of their motion to dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the
motion to stay. (Doc. no. 10.)
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.
Id. (internal citation and quotation omitted).

Here, Plaintiff does not suggest he cannot properly oppose the motion to dismiss in the
absence of discovery. Indeed, the motion to stay is unopposed. See Loc. R. 7.5. Moreover,
based on a preliminary peek at Defendants’ motion, it has the potential to be dispositive of
important aspects of the case. As summarized by Defendants, a favorable ruling on the motion
to dismiss “would render discovery entirely unnecessary as it related to Defendant McBride,
and limit the range of discovery to focus on just the one remaining claim of excessive force
against Defendant Martin in his individual capacity.” (Doc. no. 10, p. 6.) When balancing the
costs and burdens to the parties, the Court concludes discovery should be stayed pending
resolution of the motion to dismiss. See Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353,
1367 (11th Cir. 1997) (“Facial challenges to the legal sufficiency of a claim or defense, such as
a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim for relief, should, however, be resolved
before discovery begins.” (footnote omitted)).
Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion, (doc. no. 10), and STAYS all
discovery in this action pending resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss by the presiding
District Judge. The parties shall confer as required by Local Rule 26.1 within seven days of
the District Judge’s ruling on the motion to dismiss, and within fourteen days of the ruling,
they shall submit a joint Rule 26(f) Report.
SO ORDERED this 15th day of June, 2016, at Augusta, Georgia.

2