Loney v. GE Capital Retail Bank et al

Filing 28

ORDER granting 19 Motion to Stay Discovery. Discovery is stayed until defendants' motion to dismiss 17 is ruled on. Signed by US Magistrate Judge William A. Webb on 6/13/2013. (Sawyer, D.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NO. 7:13-CV-93-BR
JOYCE LONEY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
GE CAPITAL RETAIL BANK, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________ )

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court upon the Defendants’ motion to stay discovery. (DE-19).
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 that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim for relief. (DE’s 17-18). As
previously noted, Plaintiff has lodged no objection to a discovery stay. Because the motion to dismiss
challenges the sufficiency of the Complaint on its face, it is not necessary for Plaintiff to gather facts in
defense of the motion. For these reasons, the undersigned finds that Defendants have demonstrated good
cause for their request, and therefore the instant motion to stay discovery (DE-19) is GRANTED. All
discovery— including, inter alia, the requirements of Rules 26(a) & (f) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure—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, June 13, 2013.

____________________________________
WILLIAM A. WEBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE