Walton Plaza Properties, LLC et al v. GH Walton Way, LLC et al
ORDER granting Request to Stay Discovery contained in the 13 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. Thus, the Court stays discovery in this action pending resolution by the presiding District Judge of the Moving Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 10/08/2019. (jlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
WALTON PLAZA PROPERTIES, LLC, and )
WALTON PLAZA INVESTORS, LLC,
GH WALTON WAY, LLC, d/b/a Gold’s Gym, )
The parties filed a Rule 26(f) Report containing a request to stay discovery, (doc. no.
13, ¶¶ 4, 5), pending Defendants GGWW LLC, Augusta Fitness, LLC, GG Evans, LLC,
North Augusta Fitness, LLC, and Shaun Smith’s (“Moving Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss,
(doc. no. 4).1 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.
The Court also notes Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend complaint and resolution of that
motion is also pending. (Doc. no. 10.)
Id. (internal citation and quotation omitted).
Based on a preliminary peek at the Moving Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Court
finds an immediate and clear possibility of a ruling “which may be dispositive of some
important aspect of the case.” Indeed, some of the claims may be resolved or dismissed, some
Defendants may be dismissed, and the scope of discovery may be drastically limited.
Moreover, Plaintiffs and the Defendants who have been served join in the request to stay
When balancing the costs and burdens to the parties, the Court concludes discovery
should be stayed pending resolution of the pending motions. 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) (per curiam). Thus, the Court STAYS discovery in this action pending resolution
by the presiding District Judge of the Moving Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Should any
portion of the case remain after resolution of the motions, the parties shall confer and submit a
second joint Rule 26(f) Report, with proposed case deadlines, within seven days of the District
SO ORDERED this 8th day of October, 2019, at Augusta, Georgia.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?