Thomas v. Cumberland County Board of Education et al

Filing 81

ORDER granting 40 Motion to Stay Discovery - Following decisions on the motions to dismiss, if necessary, the court will enter further order as necessary to update the case management order and set forth a discovery schedule tailored to meet the needs of the parties and this forum. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 11/14/2011. (Baker, C.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
NO. 5: 10-CV-552-FL

ANITA THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD
OF EDUCATION; VANSTORY
HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL;
BETTY MUSSELWHITE, Principal,
KAREN KOONCE, and LYNN
GLASS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on defendants' motion to stay discovery (DE # 40).
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, responded in opposition. In this posture, the issues raised are ripe for
review. For the reasons that follow, defendants' motion is allowed and discovery in this case is
stayed until resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss.
A detailed summary ofthe case history is found in the court's August 18,2011, order, lodged
on the docket at entry 33. The court declines to repeat said history here except to the extent relevant
to the instant motion. On August 18,2011, this court entered order granting plaintiffs motion to
amend complaint and denying as moot without prejudice to renewal defendants' motion to dismiss.
Thereafter, plaintiff filed amended complaint on September 6, 2011.
On September 7, 2011, defendants filed the instant motion. They ask that discovery in the
case be stayed until all motions to dismiss currently pending have been decided by the court. Among

other things, defendants contend that a stay will promote efficiencies, as the court's resolution of the
motions to dismiss may dispose of various claims on which the parties would otherwise be
conducting discovery at this time. Defendants also note that at the time of filing their motion to stay,
two defendants, defendant Karen Koonce ("Koonce") and defendant Lynn Glass ("Glass"), had not
yet been served with the summons or proposed amended complaint. The docket reflects that both
defendant Koonce and defendant Glass have since filed motions to dismiss that are currently
pending.
Plaintiff responded in opposition to the motion to stay arguing that defendants' defenses to
her claims are frivolous. She also contends that there is no justifiable reason to stay discovery,
though she does not support this contention with further facts or argument.
Upon consideration of the parties' briefs and a close review of the docket, which reveals
several pending motions to dismiss filed by all defendants, the court finds that the administration of
justice is best served by deciding defendants' motions to dismiss before the parties engage in
extensive discovery. Accordingly, the court hereby GRANTS defendants' motion to stay discovery
(DE # 40), and STAYS all discovery proceedings pending the resolution of said motions. Following
decision on the motions to dismiss, if necessary, the court will enter further order as necessary to
update the case management order and set forth a discovery schedule tailored to meet the needs of
the parties and this forum.
SO ORDERED, this the 11-) l day of November, 2011.

~-W-~-tL=-=-LA-N---=A"""'G""""'ARS~-United States District Judge

2