Roberts v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA et al

Filing 60

ORDER granting 45 Motion to Stay discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 1/22/2013. (loh)

UNITED ISTATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VANNAH DIVISION
LUCY ROBERTS, on behalf of hrself
And others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
Case No. CV412-200

V.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; VELLS
FARGO INSURANCE, INC.;
AMERICAN SECURITIES INSURANCE
COMPANY; and ASSURANCE, iNC.,
Defendant.

ORDER
Defendants request a stay of discovery while the Court considers
their motions to dismisg plaintiffs "force-placed insurance scheme"
complaint. (Doc. 45; see qiso doc. 44 (same request in the parties' Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(f) report).) They contend that a stay of discovery would
spare the parties an unecessary expenditure of time, money, and
resources, since their motions to dismiss will dispose of some, if not all,
of plaintiffs claims.

(Id. at 3.) Plaintiff opposes the motion, explaining

that she is primarily interested in simply obtaining discovery that the
defendants have alread4 produced in related cases filed across the

country. (Doc. 50 at 1.) $he also insists that the motions to dismiss are
without merit, for variouJs reasons. For instance, she argues her state
law claims should survive based upon multiple cases in this Circuit
which support her. (Id. it 6.) Defendants, however, rightly note that
plaintiff cites to in-circuit cases discussing law from jurisdictions other
than Georgia (primarily Florida). (Doc. 55 at 2.)

Moreover, the fact

that defendants have acumu1ated discovery in similar cases does not
mean that plaintiff is in fact entitled to such discovery in this case.
Production of the requested discovery would appear to involve the
collection, examination, and redaction of a massive amount of data in a
case that might not surVive the present motions. If plaintiff remains
convinced that she is enjtitled to that discovery, she must wait until
after the district judge has ruled on the dismissal motions to make her
case.
Courts in this circiuit have granted motions to stay discovery
where the "resolution on the pending motion to dismiss may extinguish
some or all of the clails . . . potentially restricting the scope of
discovery significantly."

White v. Georgia, 2007 WL 3170105 at *2

(N.D. Ga. Oct. 25, 2007); ee also Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652-

2

53 (M.D. Fla. 1997). Af1er reviewing the dismissal motions here, the
Court is satisfied that they have heft and may extinguish at least some
of plaintiffs claims. Hene, applying the principles found in Chudasama

v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997), defendants'
request to stay discovery is GRANTED. Should plaintiffs case survive
the motions to dismiss,

parties shall submit a proposed scheduling

order within 14 days of

entry of the district judge's order. At that

time, the Court will

ider defendants' request for an extended

discovery period, along with their request that discovery be conducted
in phases. (Doc. 44.)
SO ORDERED this

day of January, 2013.
UNITED S ATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3