Dye v. U.S. Bank National Association et al
Filing
30
ORDER granting 22 Motion to Stay Discovery; denying as moot 29 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery Requests. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 9/11/2015. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:15-cv-82-RJC
SHARON DYE,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
U.S. BANK NATIONAL
)
ASSOCIATION and WELLS
)
FARGO, N.A.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________ )
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants U.S. Bank National Association
and Wells Fargo, N.A.’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Stay Discovery, (Doc. No. 22),
filed on July 6, 2015, and Defendants’ Third Motion for Extension of Time to Respond, (Doc.
No. 29), filed on September 8, 2015. Plaintiff Sharon Dye (“Plaintiff”) has not filed a response
to Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery and the time for doing so has expired. This matter is
ripe for review.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed her Complaint on February 20, 2015. (Doc. No. 1). On April 1, 2015,
Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss and supporting Memorandum. (Doc. Nos. 10, 11).
Plaintiff filed her Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 12), and
her Memorandum in Support of her Response, (Doc. No. 14), on April 20 and 23, 2015,
respectively. On April 29, 2015, Defendants filed their Reply to Plaintiff’s Response. (Doc. No.
15). Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 10), is ripe for review. As of the date of this
Order, the Court has not ruled on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Subsequently, Plaintiff served upon Defendants her discovery requests, including
Requests for Interrogatories and Requests for Admission. On July 6, 2015, Defendants filed the
instant Motion to Stay Discovery, (Doc. No. 22), pending the Court’s ruling on their Motion to
Dismiss. Defendants have also requested and received two extensions of time to respond to
Plaintiff’s discovery. See (Doc. Nos. 18, 27).
II.
DISCUSSION
Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the court to issue orders
establishing an array of limitations on discovery. The scope and conduct of discovery are in the
sound discretion of the district court. Erdmann v. Preferred Research Inc., 852 F.2d 788, 792
(4th Cir.1988). An order under Rule 26(c) to stay discovery pending determination of a motion
to dismiss is an appropriate exercise of a court's discretion. See Thigpen v. United States, 800
F.2d 393, 396–97 (4th Cir.1986) (citations omitted) (“Nor did the court err by granting the
government's motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) to stay discovery pending disposition of the
12(b)(1) motion . . . . Trial courts . . . are given wide discretion to control this discovery
process . . . .”), overruled on other grounds by, Sheridan v. United States, 487 U.S. 392 (1988).
Although motions to stay discovery are generally not favored because delaying or
prolonging discovery can create case management problems and cause unnecessary litigation
expenses and problems, such a request may be more appropriate where the resolution of a motion
to dismiss could dispose of the entire case. See Simpson v. Specialty Retail Concepts, Inc., 121
F.R.D. 261, 263 (M.D.N.C. 1988). Discovery is not necessary in this case in order to resolve
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and the pending Motion to Dismiss, if granted, would dispose of
2
the entire case. Therefore, the Court finds good cause to stay all further discovery until the Court
rules on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
III.
CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.
Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery, (Doc. No. 22), is GRANTED;
2.
Defendants’ Third Motion for Extension of Time to Respond, (Doc. No. 29), is
DISMISSED as moot; and
3.
Discovery in this matter is stayed until the Court enters an order resolving
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and enters an order reopening discovery.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: September 11, 2015
3
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?