Ludy v. Emmons et al
Filing
62
ORDER granting 50 Motion to Stay Discovery. Discovery is stayed until the resolution of Defendants' motion to dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 6/23/17. (cmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION
MITCHELL LUDY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DEANNE MORRIS, Health Service
)
Administrator, Ga. Regent Health System;
)
CHERIE PRICE, Deputy Warden; WESLEY )
O’NEAL, Unit Manager; JESSICA BYRD,
)
Correctional Officer; CONSTANCE
)
PULLINS, Nurse; JASON HURST, Cert.
)
Officer; LARRY TIMMONS, Cert. Officer; )
LAKEISHA SMITH, Cert. Officer; JAMIE
)
CLARK, Deputy Warden Administration;
)
ANGIE CLAXTON, Nurse; PEARLENE
)
ROGERS, Nurse; WALT BRYAN, Nurse;
)
PAMELA LINDSEY, Nurse Practitioner; and )
ANNIE BODIE, Physician Assistant,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________
CV 316-065
ORDER
________
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ unopposed motion to stay discovery,
pending resolution of its motion to dismiss (doc. no. 49). For the reasons set forth below, the
Court GRANTS the motion to stay. (Doc. no. 50.)
The Court has “broad inherent power to stay discovery until preliminary issues can be
settled which may be dispositive of some important aspect of the case.” Ameris Bank v.
Russack, No. CV 614-002, 2014 WL 2465203, at *1 (S.D. Ga. May 29, 2014) (quoting
Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir. 1987)). 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 v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (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. (See generally doc. no. 49-1.) A ruling by the Court on this threshold legal issue
could moot some or all discovery. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)
(“Until this threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed.”)
Plaintiff has already responded to the motion and does not contend he cannot oppose the
motion without further discovery. (See doc. no. 57.)
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ unopposed motion to stay discovery
and STAYS discovery until resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. no. 50.)
SO ORDERED this 23rd day of June, 2017, at Augusta, Georgia.
2
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?