Ward v. Glynn County Board of Commissioners

Filing 26

ORDER re: 22 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. The parties submit that discovery should be stayed until after a ruling by the Court on Defendant's Motions to Dismiss, (doc. 11, 18). After careful consideration, the parties request for a stay of this case is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days following the Court's ruling on Defendant's Motions, should this case remain pending before the Court, the parties shall provide Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures. Additionally, the parties shall meet and confer and file a supplemental Rule 26(f) Report within twenty-one (21) days of the Court's ruling on Defendant's Motions. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 4/8/2016. (csr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
BRUNSWICK DIVISION
YOLONDA WARD,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:15-cv-77

v.
GLYNN COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Rule 26(f) Report. (Doc. 22.) In their
March 25, 2016 Rule 26(f) Report, the parties submit that discovery should be stayed until after a
ruling by the Court on Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss, (docs. 11, 18). Id. After careful
consideration, the parties’ request for a stay of this case is GRANTED.
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 Defendant’s Motions and that no prejudice will accrue to the parties if a
stay is granted.

Specifically, a ruling on Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss before the

commencement of discovery may save the parties time and resources by clarifying what issues,
if any, the parties will need to address in discovery.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all proceedings, including discovery and
the requirements of Local Rule 26.1 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, are stayed pending
a ruling by the Court on Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days following the Court’s
ruling on Defendant’s Motions, should this case remain pending before the Court, the parties
shall provide Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures. Additionally, the parties shall meet, confer and
file a supplemental Rule 26(f) Report within twenty-one (21) days of the Court’s ruling on
Defendant’s Motions. Upon receipt of the Rule 26(f) Report, the Court will enter the appropriate
scheduling order.
SO ORDERED, this 8th day of April, 2016.

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

2