Latka v. Miles, et al

Filing 34

ORDER granting 30 Motion to Stay Discovery - All discovery in this matter, including the conference of the parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and initial disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a), is stayed until NHRMC's Pre- Answer Mot ion to Dismiss is ruled upon. If necessary following disposition of NHRMC's Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss, the parties shall, within twenty (20) days thereafter, confer regarding a discovery plan and file a proposed discovery plan and exchange mandatory initial disclosures both within twenty one (21) days after said conference. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 06/30/2014. (Baker, C.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PHYLLIS LATKA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. DAVID MILES and
NEW HANOVER REGIONAL
MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 7:14-CV-10-FL

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
THIS CAUSE came on before the Court on Motion of Defendant New Hanover
Regional Medical Center (“NHRMC”) for an Order to stay discovery, including the conference
of the parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and initial disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a),
pending resolution of NHRMC’s Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss.

The matter is ripe for

adjudication.
On 14 May 2014, NHRMC filed a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss, and on 10
April 2014, Defendant Dr. David Miles filed a Motion to Dismiss. NHRMC timely requested a
stay of discovery, including the conference of the parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and initial
disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a). The Court may properly exercise its discretion pursuant
to Rule 26(c) to issue a stay of discovery pending resolution of dispositive motions. Factors the
Court looks to in determining whether to issue 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 to the
dispositive motion.
In examining those factors as applied to this case, the Court determines that a stay
of discovery is warranted. The pending motions to dismiss will be fully dispositive if they find

favor with the Court. NHRMC further demonstrated support for its motion, raising significant
issues, including lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of standing, and the failure to include a
Rule 9(j) certification required in medical malpractice actions, for the Court’s consideration.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that a stay of discovery is warranted.
Accordingly, NHRMC’s Motion to stay discovery (DE-30) is GRANTED. All discovery in this
matter, including the conference of the parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and initial disclosures
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a), is stayed until NHRMC’s Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss is ruled
upon. If necessary following disposition of NHRMC’s Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss, the
parties shall, within twenty (20) days thereafter, confer regarding a discovery plan and file a
proposed discovery plan and exchange mandatory initial disclosures both within twenty-one (21)
days after said conference.
30th
June
SO ORDERED, this the _______ day of _________________, 2014.

By:

________________________________________
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Court,
Eastern District of North Carolina

2