Terry et al v. Health Care Service Corporation

Filing 63

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 51 Motion to Temporarily Stay Class Discovery, and 57 MOTION to Stay Proceedings. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 02/22/19. (wh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHRISTINA and JEFFREY TERRY,
husband and wife, each individually and
on behalf of their minor child, G. TERRY,
and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HEALTH CARE SERVICE
CORPORATION, a mutual legal reserve
Company, d/b/a BLUE CROSS AND
BLUE SHIELD OF OKLAHOMA,
Defendant.

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

Case No. CIV-18-0415-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Health Care Service Corporation, d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Oklahoma (“BCBSOK”) moves the Court to stay the discovery proceedings during the
resolution of Defendant’s summary judgment motion. (See Dkt. No. 56.) This Court has
detailed the facts of the case in its prior Memorandum and Opinion Order. (See Dkt. No.
29.) Defendant has now filed two separate—yet similar—stay requests with this Court.
(See Dkt. No. 51; see also Dkt. No. 57.) Essentially, Defendant argues that a temporary
discovery stay would promote judicial economy by halting class discovery issues that may
be mooted upon summary judgment. Plaintiffs, however, maintain that a stay at this
juncture is inappropriate. The matter is now before the Court.

I. Standard
District courts retain the “discretion to issue a stay pending the outcome of a
dispositive motion.”

CEP Mid-Continent, LLC v. Turkey Creek, LLC, No.

09-CV-350-CVE-FHM, 2010 WL 455128, at 1 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 2, 2010). See also Coastal
States Gas Corp. v. Dep’t of Energy, 84 F.R.D. 278, 282 (D. Del. 1979) (“It is within the
sound discretion of the Court to postpone discovery of issues relating to the merits of a
case pending resolution of potentially dispositive motions.”). Indeed, such a stay is “an
eminently logical means to prevent wasting the time and effort of all concerned, and to
make the most efficient use of judicial resources.” Anza Tech., Inc., v. Xilinx, Inc., No.
17-cv-00687-WJM-MEH, 2017 WL 10379350 (D. Colo. Oct. 16, 2017) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). It is generally appropriate for a court to issue a stay where the
case is likely to conclude upon a resolution of the dispositive motion—particularly where
the facts sought through discovery would not affect the motion. See Kutilek v. Gannon,
132 F.R.D. 296, 298 (D. Kan. 1990).
II. Discussion
Defendant asserts that it will likely prevail upon its motion for summary judgment
regarding Plaintiffs’ individual claims, and that Plaintiffs no longer seek discovery relevant
to summary judgment. (Def.’s Mot., Dkt. No. 51, p. 3.) Thus, Defendant maintains, a
discovery stay will ultimately preserve judicial resources because it will prevent possibly
futile class discovery disputes, in the event that Plaintiffs’ individual claims are ultimately
dismissed. (Def.’s Mot., Dkt. No. 51, p. 4). In response, Plaintiffs do not indicate that any
further discovery is necessary to defeat summary judgment. But they do object to
2 

Defendant’s need for a stay, suggesting the more prudent course would be to continue to
address various discovery issues as they arise. (Pls.’ Resp., Dkt. No. 54, p. 3).
Here, the Court finds that a discovery stay is appropriate. First, there are possible
class discovery issues that could become moot upon the resolution of Defendant’s
summary judgment motion which is currently pending before the Court. (See Dkt. No.
56.) Moreover, Plaintiffs do not seek further discovery bearing upon summary judgment;
thus, a temporary stay during the pendency of the summary judgment motion will not
prejudice them. Accordingly, the Court finds that the interests of efficiency and judicial
economy will be served by a temporary discovery stay during the resolution of Defendant’s
summary judgment motion.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Temporarily Stay Class Discovery (Dkt. No.
51) and Motion to Stay Proceedings (Dkt. No. 57) are GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of February, 2019.

3