Cordova v. State of New Mexico, et al.
ORDER by Magistrate Judge William P. Lynch granting 30 Motion to Stay Discovery. (mej)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
LOUIS T. CORDOVA,
CV 16-1144 JAP/WPL
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
University of New Mexico Hospital,
EDUARDO LOPEZ, CAROL HILTON,
and DEINNA DURES, Individual
ORDER GRANTING STAY OF DISCOVERY
Defendants Eduardo Lopez, Carol Hilton, and Deinna Dures filed a motion to stay
discovery (Doc. 30) pending resolution of the motion to dismiss (Doc. 29). Depositions in this
case are slated to begin on July 12, 2017. (Doc. 30 at 2.) I expedited briefing on the motion to
stay (Doc. 31), and have reviewed Plaintiff Louis Cordova’s response in opposition (Doc. 33)
and the Defendants’ reply (Doc. 34). Under the circumstances, I find that it is appropriate to
grant the motion to stay discovery and to stay all discovery deadlines that have yet to run.
The Defendants generally contend that their motion to dismiss is predicated on qualified
immunity. A careful review of the motion, however, reveals that the motion to dismiss is not
based on qualified immunity so much as it is a general failure to state a claim defense.
A court has broad discretion to stay proceedings incident to its power to manage its
docket, and may also issue a stay pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which
allows the court for good cause to limit discovery to protect a party from “undue burden or
expense.” See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). A party seeking a stay bears the
burden of establishing the need for it. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708. In deciding whether to stay
discovery, a court may consider whether there are pending motions that would dispose of the
entire case, and whether those motions appear meritorious or raise substantial concerns regarding
the viability of the plaintiff’s claims. Corwin v. Marney, Orton Inv., 843 F.2d 194, 200 (5th Cir.
1988); Nankivil v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 216 F.R.D. 689, 692 (M.D. Fla. 2003). The court
should balance any undue burden that discovery would impose against any prejudice that a stay
of discovery would cause. GTE Wireless, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., 192 F.R.D. 284, 289 (S.D. Cal.
2000). The party opposing the stay may demonstrate prejudice by showing that it needs
particular discovery to respond to a dispositive motion, Weldon v. Ramstad-Hvass, 512 F. App’x
783, 797 (10th Cir. 2013), or that discoverable information may be lost during the pendency of
the stay, Clinton, 520 U.S. at 707-08.
The Defendants have shown that their motion to dismiss, if granted, would dispose of
Cordova’s entire claim. Cordova argues that the Defendants have attacked the facts set forth in
the Complaint, but does not contend that he needs discovery to respond to the motion to dismiss,
or that discoverable information may be lost during the pendency of the stay.
The motion to stay discovery is granted. All discovery deadlines that have already
passed—including the deadlines for expert disclosures—are unaffected by this stay. An amended
scheduling order detailing the termination date for discovery, the deadline for discovery motions,
and the deadline for dispositive motions will be entered after Judge Parker rules on the motion to
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William P. Lynch
United States Magistrate Judge
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?