Diaz v. Atkinson County, Georgia et al

Filing 92

ORDER granting 68 Motion to Stay Discovery until such time a ruling is made on Defendant Atkinson County's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint; deferring ruling on Defendants Gourley, Guthrie, and Moore's 71 Mo tion for Discovery to be Limited to Issues Related to Official and Statutory Immunity upon Resolution of Defendant Atkinson County, Georgia's Motion to Dismiss. Within fourteen (14) days of entry of a ruling on Defendant Atkinson County's Motion to Dismiss, the parties are directed to contact the Court to schedule a telephonic hearing as to this Motion requesting a limited discovery period. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 10/9/2015. (ca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
WAYCROSS DIVISION

LORI DIAZ,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:15-cv-16

v.
ATKINSON COUNTY, GEORGIA; MSPACE HOLDINGS, LLC; VICTOR B.
SUTTLES; SUTTLES & ASSOCIATESARCHITECTS, LLC; WINSTON
GOURLEY; SAMUEL T. GUTHRIE;
EXPERIENCE WORKS, INC.; RICKY
MOORE; SUNNYSIDE CORPORATION;
OSTELLA POPE; and COLGATEPALMOLIVE COMPANY,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Atkinson County, Georgia’s Renewed
Motion to Stay Discovery pending resolution of its Motion to Dismiss Second Amended
Complaint.

(Doc. 68)

On September 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Response to this Motion

indicating her consent to a stay of discovery. (Doc. 78.) After careful consideration, Defendant
Atkinson County, Georgia’s Renewed Motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this action on March 4, 2015, against Atkinson County, Georgia, M-Space
Holdings, LLC, Victor B. Suttles, and Suttles & Associates-Architects, LLC. (Doc. 1.) On
July 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend her Complaint (doc. 33) which the Court
granted (doc. 35).

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint added two additional Defendants,

Winston Gourley and Samuel T. Guthrie, and added additional claims. (Doc. 36.) On July 22,
2015, Defendant Atkinson County moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on grounds of
sovereign immunity. (Doc. 38.) Contemporaneous with that Motion, Atkinson County moved to
stay discovery while the Motion to Dismiss is pending. (Doc. 39.) After a telephonic hearing on
July 24, 2015, the Court entered an Order granting Defendant Atkinson County’s Motion to Stay
Discovery in part allowing a limited discovery period for Plaintiff to conduct discovery related to
issues as to amending her Complaint to name additional parties and discovery needed to respond
to Atkinson County’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 47.)
On August 25, 2015, in accordance with the Court’s July 24, 2015 Order, Plaintiff filed a
Second Motion to Amend her Complaint (doc. 57) which the Court granted (doc. 62). Plaintiff’s
Second Amended Complaint added five additional Defendants, Experience Works, Inc., Ricky
Moore, Sunnyside Corporation, Ostella Pope and Colgate-Palmolive Company, and added
additional claims. (Doc. 63.) Defendant Atkinson County filed its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Second Amended Complaint contemporaneously with the present Motion to Stay. (Doc. 67.)
On September 17, 2015, Defendants Atkinson County, Georgia, Gourley, Guthrie, and Moore
filed their Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.

(Doc. 69.)

Later, M-Space

Holdings, LLC filed its Answer on September 21, 2015 (doc. 75); and Defendants Victor B.
Suttles and Suttles & Associates-Architects, LLC filed their Answer to Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint on September 23, 2015 (doc. 79).

On October 5, 2015, Defendant

Sunnyside Corporation filed a pre-answer Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint. (Doc. 85.) Defendants Colgate-Palmolive Company, Experience Works, Inc. and
Ostella Pope by the granting of Motions for Clerk’s Extension of Time are to answer, or

2

otherwise respond, to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint on or before October 14, 205.
(Docs. 82, 90.)
DISCUSSION
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 for a stay of discovery while
Defendant Atkinson County’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is
pending. 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

3

in discovery. Additionally, in her Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff added five Defendants
to this action. One of those Defendants has filed a separate Motion to Dismiss, and three have
not yet filed an answer in this action. Finally, Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendant Atkinson
County’s Renewed Motion to Stay on September 23, 2015, stating that she consents to a stay of
discovery pending resolution of Defendant Atkinson County’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 76.)
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Discovery in this matter is STAYED
until such time as a ruling is made on Defendant Atkinson County’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will DEFER RULING on Defendants
Gourley, Guthrie, and Moore’s Motion to Limit Discovery to Issues Related to Official and
Statutory Immunity upon Resolution of Defendant Atkinson County, Georgia’s Motion to
Dismiss (doc. 71). Within fourteen (14) days of entry of a ruling on Defendant Atkinson
County’s Motion to Dismiss, the parties are directed to contact the Court to schedule a telephonic
hearing as to this Motion requesting a limited discovery period.
SO ORDERED, this 9th day of October, 2015.

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

4