Griggs v. Davis et al

Filing 43

ORDER granting 34 Motion to Stay pending the Court's ruling on Defendants' 29 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 12/04/2017. (jlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
EUGENE GRIGGS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STAN SHEPARD, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_________

CV 117-089

ORDER
_________
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery
pending the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. no. 29). For the reasons
set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion to stay. (Doc. no. 34.)
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.”

Indeed, Defendants have moved for their dismissal from this case entirely, (see doc. no. 29),
and Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion to stay. 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 Defendants’
motion to dismiss. Should any portion of the case remain after resolution of the motion, the
parties shall confer and submit a Rule 26(f) Report, with proposed case deadlines, within seven
days of the presiding District Judge’s ruling.
SO ORDERED this 4th day of December, 2017, at Augusta, Georgia.

2