Abdullah v. Contract Callers
ORDER granting 20 Motion to Stay discovery in this action pending final resolution of Defendant's motion to dismiss. Parties shall confer and submit a Rule 26(f) Report within seven days of the presiding District Judge's ruling should any portion of the case remain. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 09/09/2020. (jlh)
Case 1:20-cv-00007-JRH-BKE Document 22 Filed 09/09/20 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Defendant moves to stay discovery pending resolution of its pre-answer Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State A Claim. (Doc. no. 20.) For the reasons set forth below, the
Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to stay discovery.
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.”
Case 1:20-cv-00007-JRH-BKE Document 22 Filed 09/09/20 Page 2 of 2
(See doc. no. 13.) Indeed, Defendant has moved for dismissal of all remaining claims.
Plaintiff has not responded to the motion to stay, and it is therefore deemed unopposed. Loc.
R. 7.5. 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) (“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) (per curiam) (“[D]elaying a ruling on the motion to
dismiss ‘encourages abusive discovery and, if the court ultimately dismisses the 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.’”).
Thus, the Court STAYS all discovery in this action pending final 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 presiding District Judge’s ruling. In the event the presiding District
Judge, in his ruling on the pending dispositive motion, provides further instructions to the
parties that justifies continuation of the stay, the parties shall inform the undersigned to that
effect in a status report to be filed within seven days of the presiding District Judge’s ruling.
SO ORDERED this 9th day of September, 2020, 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?