Jones et al v. Lamkin

Filing 16

ORDER staying discovery pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss by the District Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 4/17/17. (cmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

MALLORY C. JONES and
TROY A. MOSES,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
RAMONE LAMKIN, Individually, and In )
His Official Capacity as Marshal of the
)
Civil and Magistrate Courts of
)
Richmond County, Georgia, and
)
AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY,
)
GEORGIA,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________

CV 117-003

ORDER
_________
On April 12, 2017, the parties filed a Rule 26(f) Report in which they request a stay
of discovery, (doc. no. 15, p. 1), until Defendant Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia’s
motion to dismiss, (doc. no. 7), is resolved by the presiding District Judge. For the reasons
set forth below, the Court GRANTS the request for a stay.
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). 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).
Based on a preliminary peek at the defense motion, the Court finds an immediate and
clear possibility of a ruling “which may be dispositive of some important aspect of the case,”
in particular, who is the proper Defendant. Id. 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); Moore
v. Potter, 141 F. App’x 803, 807-08 (11th Cir. 2005).
Thus, the Court STAYS all discovery in this action pending resolution of Defendant
Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia’s motion to dismiss by the presiding District Judge. The
remaining parties shall confer and submit a second joint Rule 26(f) Report within fourteen
days of the District Judge’s ruling on the motion to dismiss.
SO ORDERED this 17th day of April, 2017, at Augusta, Georgia.

2