Avendano-Bautista v. Kimbell Gin Machinery Company et al

Filing 28

ORDER granting 21 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 10/24/2016. (maa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
ADRIAN AVENDANO-BAUTISTA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
KIMBELL GIN MACHINERY COMPANY, )
and LUBBOCK ELECTRIC CO., INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________

CV 116-108

ORDER
_________
Before the Court is Defendant Lubbock Electric’s unopposed motion for a stay of
discovery pending resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. no. 21.) Plaintiff does
not object to the motion. (Doc. no. 27.) 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.”) 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 suggests that it has the potential to be “casedispositive,” Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 653, 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 hereby GRANTS Defendant’s request to stay discovery (doc. no. 21);
the parties shall confer and submit a proposed joint scheduling order within seven days of the
District Court’s ruling on the dismissal motion. Such order should include date-certain
deadlines through the filing of summary judgment motions.
SO ORDERED this 24th day of October, 2016, at Augusta, Georgia.

2