Rushton v. Shulkin

Filing 16

ORDER granting 14 Motion to Stay. All discovery in this case is stayed pending the resolution of Defendant's 10 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 3/19/2018. (pts)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
SABRINA RUSHTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_________

CV 117-171

ORDER
_________
Defendant moves to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss. (Doc.
no. 14.) 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.”
Indeed, Defendant has moved for dismissal of the case in its entirety, (see doc. no. 10), and

Plaintiff does not object to the stay (doc. no. 15). 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’s
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 Court’s final ruling.
SO ORDERED this 19th day of March, 2018, at Augusta, Georgia.

2