Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

Filing 21

ORDER granting 18 Motion to Stay; thus, the Court stays all discovery in this action pending resolution of Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. Should Defendant's motion be denied, the parties shall submit a proposed joint revised scheduling order within 7 days of the order denying the motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 09/10/2018. (jlh)

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )
COMMISSION,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_________

CV 118-049

ORDER
_________
Following a teleconference with the parties on September 10, 2018, the Court
GRANTS the joint motion to stay. (Doc. no. 18.)
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 teleconference held by the Court, there is an immediate and clear possibility
of a ruling “which may be dispositive of some important aspect of the case.” Id. Defendant
will file a motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, motion for summary

judgment by September 11, 2018. (Doc. no. 20.) Defendant will argue in its motion there was
not a timely charge of discrimination. If granted, this motion will dispose of the case. The
parties do not anticipate any more discovery is necessary concerning this defense or the
motion. When balancing the costs and burdens to the parties, the Court concludes discovery
should be stayed pending resolution of Defendant’s motion. 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 for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment.
Should Defendant’s motion be denied, the parties shall submit a proposed joint revised
scheduling order within seven days of the order denying the motion.
SO ORDERED this 10th day of September, 2018, at Augusta, Georgia.

2