Downs et al v. Crouch et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying 11 Defendants' Joint Motion to Stay Discovery and Scheduling Order Deadlines. Signed on 9/20/2018 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Phillips, Caleb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
SHERYL DOWNS, ERIN PHILLIPS,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
Case No. 4:18-00373-CV-RK
)
JEFFREY CROUCH, ENERSYS
)
DELAWARE, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND
SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES
Plaintiffs Sheryl Downs and Erin Phillips bring this action against Defendants Jeffrey
Crouch and Enersys Delaware, Inc. alleging personal injuries stemming from a motor vehicle
accident that occurred in Iowa. (Doc. 1-2 at 5-10, 40-47.) Before the Court is the joint motion to
stay filed by Defendants Jeffrey Crouch and Enersys Delaware, Inc. (Doc. 11.) Defendants seek
an order staying all discovery and scheduling order deadlines until the resolution of their pending
motions to dismiss, which argue that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendants.
(Doc. 1-2 at 68-85, 86-104.) Plaintiffs filed a joint opposition to the motion to stay (doc. 13), and
Defendants filed a joint reply (doc. 14). After careful consideration, the motion to stay is
DENIED.
Discussion
In their motion to stay, Defendants argue that they “will suffer hardship by participating in
lengthy and costly discovery when both Defendants have objected to personal jurisdiction.”
(Doc. 12 at 2.) Defendants further maintain that “[n]either party will suffer prejudice from a stay
of all discovery and deadlines in so far as all parties desire a swift resolution to the pending motions
to dismiss.” (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiffs respond that because their personal injury action arose from a
motor vehicle accident, “the scope of discovery should be limited,” and even if Defendants’
motions to dismiss are granted, “no harm would result because the discovery conducted here could
be used in the re-filed forum.” (Doc. 13 at 3.) Plaintiffs also contend that “[t]he information
learned in discovery could assist in getting the case resolved.” (Doc. 13 at 4.)

“The trial court has broad discretion to control the scheduling of events in matters on its
docket.” Jones v. Clinton, 72 F.3d 1354, 1361 (8th Cir. 1996). “[T]he power to stay proceedings
is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its
docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”
Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). A stay is extraordinary relief such that the
requesting party “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go
forward[.]” Id. at 255. Consistent with these principles, Rule 26(c) provides that a court may stay
discovery for good cause shown. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The filing of a motion to dismiss does
not, by itself, constitute good cause for staying discovery. TE Connectivity Networks, 2013 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 117719 at *5. As explained by another court in this district considering similar
circumstances:
A stay should be entered only where it is a proper exercise of the court’s discretion,
and the proponent of the stay bears the burden of establishing the need for a stay.
In determining whether to grant a motion to stay discovery pending the outcome of
a dispositive motion, a court considers a variety of factors, including the movant’s
likelihood of success on the underlying motion; whether the movant will be
irreparably harmed absent a stay; the breadth of the pending discovery; the balance
of harms in delaying discovery against the possibility that the underlying motion
will dispose of the case; the public interest; and judicial economy.
Blacktop, Inc. v. Edible Arrangements Int’l, Inc., No. 4:14-CV-00005-DGK, 2014 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 59845, at *2-3 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 30, 2014) (internal citations omitted).
As in Blacktop, this Court finds that Defendants have not carried their burden of showing
that a stay is justified in these circumstances. After reviewing the pending motions to dismiss
challenging personal jurisdiction, the Court cannot conclude that Defendants’ motions are so
obviously likely to prevail that a stay is warranted. Defendants have not shown that proceeding
with discovery in this case will irreparably harm them or that the breadth of discovery in this motor
vehicle accident case is substantial. Notably, if the Court grants Defendants’ motions to dismiss,
any discovery conducted in this case could be used when the case is re-filed in the appropriate
forum. And if the Court does not grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss, a stay would likely result
in the Court needing to extend current scheduling order deadlines to allow sufficient time for the
parties to complete discovery and brief later dispositive motions. Consequently, the factors
considered do not weigh in favor of a stay.

2

Conclusion
For the reasons above, it is ORDERED that the joint motion to stay filed by Defendants
Jeffrey Crouch and Enersys Delaware, Inc. is DENIED. (Doc. 11.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Roseann A. Ketchmark
ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DATED: September 20, 2018

3