Hardy v. Georgia Department of Corrections et al

Filing 47

ORDER granting Defendants' 44 Motion to Stay, and stays all discovery pending resolution of the partial 43 Motion to Dismiss. Within 7 days of the presiding District Judge's ruling, the remaining parties shall confer and submit a Rule26(f) Report. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 09/20/2018. (jlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
GEORGE W. HARDY,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
__________

CV 117-172

ORDER
__________
Defendants Shepard, West, Young, McGrew, Giddens, Fountain, Burnside, Gore,
Chatman, Wells, the Georgia Department of Corrections, and the Board of Regents of the
University System of Georgia move to stay discovery pending resolution of their Partial
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint filed September 4, 2018. The
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.” 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.

Based on a preliminary peek at the defense motion, the Court finds an immediate and
clear possibility of a ruling that would dismiss some of the claims or could restrict the scope of
discovery. Plaintiff contends, in the absence of discovery, he is unable to know whether
additional providers should be named as Defendants or to know the capacity in which certain
Defendants treated him. (Doc. no. 46, p. 2.) Plaintiff also claims there are questions of fact he
must explore through discovery in order to establish the elements of his deliberate indifference
claim. (Id.) However, as Chief Judge Hall previously explained, this “is Plaintiff’s second
lawsuit arising out of the same set of operative facts.” (Doc. no. 41, p. 2.) The “Second
Amended Complaint is in effect [Plaintiff’s] Fifth Amended Complaint.” (Id.) Given the
lengthy history of the case in its various iterations, and based on the ability to file an eighteen
page brief in opposition to the partial motion to dismiss, it makes little sense to forge ahead
with full discovery in this context because of the substantial risk that much time and money
could be wasted. Of course, once the partial motion to dismiss has been resolved, a full
discovery period will be set to investigate all remaining claims.
When balancing the costs and burdens to the parties, the Court concludes discovery
should be stayed pending resolution of the partial motion to dismiss. See Chudasama v.
Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997) (“Facial challenges to the legal
sufficiency of a claim or defense, such as a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim
for relief, should, however, be resolved before discovery begins.” (footnote omitted)); see also
Moore v. Potter, 141 F. App’x 803, 807-08 (11th Cir. 2005) (“[D]elaying a ruling on the
motion to dismiss ‘encourages abusive discovery and, if the court ultimately dismisses the

2

claim, imposes unnecessary costs. . . . [A]ny legally unsupported claim that would unduly
enlarge the scope of discovery should be eliminated before the discovery stage, if possible.’”).
Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion, (doc. no. 44), and STAYS all
discovery pending resolution of the partial motion to dismiss. Within seven days of the
presiding District Judge’s ruling, the remaining parties shall confer and submit a Rule 26(f)
Report.
SO ORDERED this 20th day of September, 2018, at Augusta, Georgia.

3