Wilson v. Danforth et al
ORDER granting 65 Motion to Stay. DISCOVERY is Stayed until the pending resolution of 63 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 08/08/2017. (pts)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
RICKY LEWIS WILSON,
WILLIAM DANFORTH, Former Warden
Deputy Warden of Security, Telfair
State Prison; ROBERT TOOLE,
Field Operations Officer, Georgia
Department of Correction; TERENCE
KILPATRICK, Unit Manager, Telfair
State Prison; ZACHARY MIXON,
Sergeant of CERT Team,
Telfair State Prison;
PHILLIP HALL, Warden; and
RODNEY MCCLOUD, Unit Manager,
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to stay discovery, pending
resolution of its motion to dismiss (doc. no. 63). For the reasons set forth below, the Court
GRANTS the motion to stay. (Doc. no. 65.)
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to update the docket in accordance with the caption
on this Order.
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).
Here, because a cursory review of the motion suggests that it has the potential to be
dispositive, id. at 653, discovery should be stayed. See Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp.,
123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Moore v. Potter, 141 F. App’x 803, 808 (11th
Cir. 2005). Defendants allege Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies,
failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and Defendants are entitled to
qualified immunity. (See generally doc. no. 65.) A ruling by the Court on any of these
threshold legal issues could moot some or all discovery. Plaintiff does not contend he cannot
properly oppose the motion to dismiss in the absence of discovery. (See doc. no. 75.)
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) (“[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.’”); see also Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (“Until this threshold immunity question is resolved,
discovery should not be allowed.”)
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to stay discovery and STAYS
discovery until resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. no. 65.)
SO ORDERED this 8th day of August, 2017, 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?