Smith et al v. Roundtree et al

Filing 25

ORDER granting 23 Joint Motion to Stay Discovery (With One Limited Exception) Unitl Resolution of Pending Motions to Dismiss. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days following the Court's ruling on Defendants' Motions, shou ld this case remain pending before the Court, the parties are directed to again meet and confer pursuant to Rule 26(f). Additionally, the parties are to file a Rule 26(f) Report within fourteen (14) days of the Rule 26(f) conference at which time a Scheduling Order will be entered by the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 7/20/2015. (ca)

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

RUSSELL W. SMITH; and LYNETTE
SMITH,
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:15-cv-4

v.
NICK ROUNDTREE; ARCHIE DAVIS;
ANTHONY BROWN; and THE CITY OF
DARIEN,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Discovery (With One
Limited Exception) Until Resolution of Pending Motions to Dismiss. (Doc. 23.) After careful
consideration and for the reasons set forth below, the parties’ motion is GRANTED.
In their Motion, the parties submit that discovery should be stayed until such time as the
Court enters rulings upon Defendant Nick Roundtree and Defendant City of Darien’s Motions to
Dismiss. (Doc. 23, p. 1) The parties request a stay of discovery in this action, except to the
extent that the discovery concerns the issue of the timeliness and sufficiency of service of
process upon the City of Darien, Georgia and Anthony Brown. (Id.)
With regard to the timing of discovery, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has
recognized that
[i]f the district court dismisses a nonmeritorious claim before discovery has
begun, unnecessary costs to the litigants and to the court system can be avoided.
Conversely, delaying ruling on a motion to dismiss such a claim until after the
parties complete discovery encourages abusive discovery and, if the court
ultimately dismisses the claim, imposes unnecessary costs. For these reasons, any

legally unsupported claim that would unduly enlarge the scope of discovery
should be eliminated before the discovery stage, if possible.
Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1368 (11th Cir. 1997) (footnotes omitted).
For these reasons, this Court, and other courts within the Eleventh Circuit, routinely find good
cause to stay the discovery period where there is a pending motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Habib v.
Bank of Am. Corp., No. 1:10-cv-04079-SCJ-RGV, 2011 WL 2580971, at *6 n.4 (N.D. Ga.
Mar. 15, 2011) (citing Chudasama, 123 F.3d at 1368) (“[T]here is good cause to stay discovery
obligations until the District Judge rules on [the defendant’s] motion to dismiss to avoid undue
expense to both parties.”); Berry v. Canady, No. 2:09-cv-765-FtM-29SPC, 2011 WL 806230,
at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 2, 2011) (quoting Moore v. Potter, 141 F. App’x 803, 807 (11th
Cir. 2005)) (“[N]either the parties nor the court have any need for discovery before the court
rules on the motion [to dismiss].”).
In the case at hand, the Court finds that good cause exists to stay this case until such time
as a ruling is made on Defendants’ motions and that no prejudice will accrue to the parties if a
stay is granted.

Specifically, a ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss before the

commencement of discovery may save the parties time and resources by clarifying what issues
the parties will need to address in discovery.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all proceedings, including discovery,
with the exception of discovery concerning the issue of the timeliness and sufficiency of service
of process upon the City of Darien, Georgia and Anthony Brown, are stayed pending a ruling by
the Court on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (docs. 9, 20).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days following the Court’s
ruling on Defendants’ Motions, should this case remain pending before the Court, the parties are
directed to again meet and confer pursuant to Rule 26(f). Additionally, the parties are to file a

2

Rule 26(f) Report within fourteen (14) days of the Rule 26(f) conference at which time a
Scheduling Order will be entered by the Court.
SO ORDERED, this 20th day of July, 2015.

R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3