Lundy v. Bryson et al
ORDER granting Defendants' 23 Motion to Stay Proceedings. All proceedings, including discovery, are stayed pending a ruling by the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. This ruling does not affect Plaintiff's obligation to file a response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 1/5/2017. (ca)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:16-cv-71
HOMER BRYSON; JAMES K. COX, JR.;
KIMBERLY LOWE; WILLIAM STEEDLY;
THOMAS GRAMIAK; and ELIZABETH
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings. (Doc. 23.)
Defendants submit that discovery and the requirements of Local Rule 26.1 and Federal Rule 26
should be stayed until such time as the Court enters a ruling on their Motion to Dismiss,
(doc. 22). After careful consideration, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion.
With regard to the timing of discovery, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has
[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 defendants’] 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 to stay this case until such time
as a ruling is made on Defendants’ motion and that no prejudice will accrue to the parties if a
stay is granted.
Specifically, a ruling on Defendants’ 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 in discovery.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all proceedings, including discovery, are
stayed pending a ruling by the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, at which time a
discovery schedule will be entered as to any claims that may remain. This ruling does not affect
Plaintiff’s obligation to file a response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
SO ORDERED, this 5th day of January, 2017.
R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 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?