Medlin v. Burns

Filing 22

ORDER that discovery, and all other deadlines, shall be stayed pending a resolution of Defendant's 4 MOTION to Substitute Party, 10 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. The parties shall exchange Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures within fourteen (14) days of the Court's ruling on Defendant's Motions. 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. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 8/26/2015. (ca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
BRUNSWICK DIVISION
ALBERT V. MEDLIN,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:15-cv-78

v.
WALTER BURNS,
Defendant.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Rule 26(f) Report. (Doc. 19.) In their
August 17, 2015 Rule 26(f) Report, the parties submit that discovery, including initial
disclosures and all other pretrial deadlines, should not commence until after a ruling by the Court
on Defendant’s Motion to Substitute Party (doc. 6) and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 10).
Id. After careful consideration, the parties’ request for a stay of discovery 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 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 discovery, and all other deadlines, shall
be stayed pending a resolution of Defendant’s Motion to Substitute Party and Motion to Dismiss.
The parties shall exchange Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures within fourteen (14) days of the
Court’s ruling on Defendant’s Motions. 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 26th day of August, 2015.

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

2