Shaffer v. Danforth et al

Filing 31

ORDER granting 28 Motion to Stay Discovery. Discovery is stayed pending the resolution of Defendants' motion to dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 1/22/15. (cmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION
JOHNNIE SHAFFER, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
LT. MADDOX, CO I, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_________

CV 314-070

ORDER
_________
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ unopposed motion to stay discovery, (doc.
no. 28), pending resolution of Defendants’ pre-answer motion to dismiss, (doc. no. 27). For the
reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion to 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) (quoting Simpson v. Specialty Retail Concepts, Inc., 121 F.R.D.
261, 263 (M.D.N.C. 1988)). 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.
Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652 (internal citation and quotation omitted).

Because the motion to dismiss seeks dismissal of all but one claim against Defendants,
(doc. no. 27-1, pp. 2-8), it has the potential to restrict the breadth of discovery significantly,
White v. Georgia, 1:07-CV-01739, 2007 WL 3170105, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 25, 2007), and
discovery should be stayed pending its consideration. See Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652-53;
Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367-68 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Moore v.
Potter, 141 F. App’x 803, 808 (11th Cir. 2005); In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litig., 231 F.R.D.
331, 338 n.7 (N.D. Ill. 2005).
Thus, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion (doc. no. 28) and STAYS all
discovery in this action pending resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
SO ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 2015, at Augusta, Georgia.

2