Johnson v. Pitt County Schools et al
Filing
24
ORDER granting 22 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge William A. Webb on 12/13/2012. Counsel should read order in its entirety for critical deadlines and information. Copy of order to pro se plaintiff via US Mail at address on record. (Marsh, K)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASTERN DIVISION
NO. 4:12-CV-191-BR
JOHNNIE IVEY JOHNSON,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
PITT COUNTY SCHOOLS,
)
JENNIFER POPLIN, GLEN
)
BUCK, DELILAH JACKSON & )
BEVERLY EMORY,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________ )
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court upon the Defendants’ motion to stay discovery. (DE-22).
Plaintiff has not responded to this motion and the time for doing so has expired. Accordingly, the matter is
now ripe for adjudication.
In this motion, Defendants request that all discovery be stayed during the pendency of their
motion to dismiss.
Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a court to issue orders
limiting or staying discovery. Specifically:
A court may properly exercise its discretion under Rule 26(c) to stay discovery
pending resolution of dispositive motions. Tilley v. United States, 270 F, Supp.
2d 731, 734 (M.D.N.C. 2003), aff=d, 85 Fed. Appx. 333 (4th Cir. 15 Jan. 2004), cert
denied, 543 U.S. 819 (2004). Factors favoring issuance of a stay include the
potential for the dispositive motion to terminate all the claims in the case or all the
claims against particular defendants, strong support for the dispositive motion on
the merits, and irrelevancy of the discovery at issue to the dispositive motions.
See id. at 735; Simpson v. Specialty Retail Concepts, Inc., 121 F.R.D. 261, 263
(M.D.N.C. 1998). Conversely, discovery ordinarily should not be stayed when it
is necessary to gather facts in defense of the motion. Tilley, 270 F. Supp. 2d at
734; Simpson, 121 F.R.D. at 263.
Yongo v. Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of America, 2008 WL 516744 (E.D.N.C.
2008), at *2 (footnote omitted).
Moreover, a stay of discovery Ais an eminently logical means to prevent wasting the time and effort of all
concerned, and to make the most efficient use of judicial resources.@ U.S. v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 2007
WL 3051449 (S.D.W.Va. 2007)(quoting, Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy, 84 F.R.D.
278, 282 (D.C. Del. 1979)).
Defendants allege inter alia, that they have not been properly served and that Plaintiff fails to state
a claim for relief. (DE’s 17-18). As previously noted, Plaintiff has lodged no objection to a discovery
stay. For these reasons, the undersigned finds that Defendants have demonstrated good cause for their
request, and therefore the instant motion to stay discovery (DE-22) is GRANTED. All discovery—
including the requirements of Rules 26(a) & (f)—in this matter is stayed until Defendants’ motion to
dismiss (DE-17) is ruled upon. If Defendants’ motion is denied, the parties shall, within 15 days
thereafter, confer regarding a discovery plan and file a proposed discovery plan and exchange mandatory
initial disclosures within 15 days after said conference.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Raleigh, North Carolina on Thursday, December 13,
2012.
____________________________________
WILLIAM A. WEBB
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?