Lewis v. The City of Wadley et al

Filing 28

ORDER granting 14 Motion to Stay discovery. Once the ruling is made of the Motion for judgment of the pleadings, the remaining parties shall confer and submit a revised scheduling order within 14 days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 12/12/16. (cmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
WESLEY L. LEWIS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE CITY OF WADLEY, a municipal
)
corporation organized under the laws
)
of the State of Georgia, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________

CV 116-106

ORDER
_________
On December 1, 2016, Defendants filed a motion requesting a stay of discovery, (doc.
no. 14), until a ruling on Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (doc. no. 13).
Upon consideration, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the request.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), this Court has “broad inherent power to stay discovery
until preliminary issues can be settled which may be dispositive of some important aspect of
the case.” Ameris Bank v. Russack, No. CV614-002, 2014 WL 2465203, at *1 (S.D. Ga.
May 29, 2014) (quoting Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir. 1987)). A stay should
be granted where all discovery may be mooted by ruling on a legal issue. See Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (“Until this threshold immunity question is resolved,
discovery should not be allowed.”) Moreover, courts have granted motions to stay where the
“resolution on the pending motion . . . may extinguish some or all of the claims . . .

potentially restricting the scope of discovery significantly.”

White v. Georgia, No.

1:07CV01739WSD, 2007 WL 3170105, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 25, 2007).

The court may take a “preliminary peak” at the merits of the dispositive motion to
assess the likelihood that it will be granted. Russack, 2014 WL 2465203, at *1 (citing
Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997)). Here, because a cursory review of
the motion for judgment on the pleadings suggests it has the potential to be “case-dispositive,”
Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 653, or could restrict the scope of discovery, discovery should be
stayed. See Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997); see also
Moore v. Potter, 141 F. App’x 803, 808 (11th Cir. 2005).
Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ request (doc. no. 14) and STAYS discovery
until the District Judge’s ruling on the motion for judgment on the pleadings, in which case
remaining parties shall confer and submit a revised scheduling order within fourteen days.
Such order should include date-certain deadlines through the filing of summary judgment
motions.
SO ORDERED this 12th day of December, 2016, at Augusta, Georgia.

2