Timmons v. Reid et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting Defendants' 16 Motion to Stay. 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. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 11/15/2016. (csr)

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

TIMOTHY TIMMONS,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:16-cv-58

v.
OFFICER REID; and OFFICER SANDERS,
Defendants.

ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) He is proceeding
pro se. On November 7, 2016, Defendants filed a pre-answer Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 15.)
Defendants also moved to stay discovery in this case until that Motion is resolved. Upon careful
consideration, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Stay. (Doc. 16.)
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 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
Defendants’ request 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 15th day of November, 2016.

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

2