Locker v. Wake County Public Schools et al

Filing 33

ORDER granting 27 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr on 12/11/2013. (Marsh, K)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:13-CV-542-BR
TOMAR COOPER LOCKER,
Plaintiff,

v.

)
)
)
)

ORDER

)
)

WAKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ALMA
JEAN HAWKINS, CHRISTY ESTES, and
DR. STEPHEN GAINEY,

)
)
)
)

Defendants.

)

This matter comes before the court on Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery. [DE-27].
In the motion, Defendants request that all di~covery, including the requirements to conduct the initial
pretrial conference and submit a discovery plan as mandated by Rule 26(f) and to provide Rule 26( a)
initial disclosures, be stayed pending resolution ofDefendants' motion to dismiss [DE-19]. Plaintiff
did not respond to the motion, but Defendants' motion indicates that Plaintiff was consulted and did
not consent to the motion.
Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a court to issue an order
limiting or staying discovery. Specifically, a court has discretion to stay discovery until the court's
resolution of pending dispositive motions. See Yongo v. Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. ofAm., No.
5:07-CV-94-D, 2008 WL 516744, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 25, 2008); Tilley v. United States, 270 F.
Supp. 2d 731, 734 (M.D.N.C. 2003). In certain cases, a stay of discovery may be appropriate to
prevent a waste oftime and resources by the parties and to make efficient use of judicial resources.

See United States v. A. T Massey Coal Co., No. 2:07-0299, 2007 WL 3051449, at *2 (S.D. W.Va.

Oct. 18, 2007). '"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
motion."' Yongo, 2008 WL 516744, at *2 (quoting Tilley, 270 F. Supp. 2d at 735).
Here, Defendants have demonstrated good cause for their request to stay discovery and
other deadlines pending resolution of Defendants' motion to dismiss. A review of this case indicates
that, during the pendency of the instant motion, the parties have already completed portions of the
discovery requirements for which Defendants are seeking a stay. The parties held a telephone
conference on or about November 11, 2013, regarding the making of a discovery plan and
Defendants submitted a Rule 26(f) report to the court on December 3, 2013. [DE-31]. The docket
indicates that Plaintiffhas likewise submitted a Rule 26 report to the court, but review of the filing
indicates that Plaintiff has merely submitted a document stating his position on the making of a
discovery plan and does not reflect a proposed discovery plan. [DE-29]. Accordingly, all discovery
obligations are STAYED pending the court's ruling on Defendants' motion to dismiss. To the extent
Defendants' motion [DE-19] is not dispositive of all claims, the parties shall submit a revised
discovery plan and exchange mandatory initial disclosures within twenty-one (21) days ofthe court's
ruling on the motion.
So ordered, the 11th day of December, 2013.

Robert B. Jones, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge