Knisely v. National Better Living Association, Inc et al

Filing 25

ORDER DENYING NATIONAL BETTER LIVING ASSOCIATION, INC.'S MOTION 24 TO STAY DISCOVERY AND ALL OTHER PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES PENDING DISPOSITION OF ITS 21 MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by District Judge Gina M. Groh on 2/26/2014. (tlg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG
DAVID KNISELY,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:14-CV-15
(JUDGE GROH)
NATIONAL BETTER LIVING
ASSOCIATION, INC., AMERICAN MEDICAL
AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and
JOHNIJANE DOES,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING NATIONAL BETTER LIVING ASSOCIATION. INC.’S MOTION TO
STAY DISCOVERY AND ALL OTHER PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES PENDING
DISPOSITION OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS
Currently pending before the Court is National Better Living Association, Inc.’s
(“NBLA”) Motion to Stay Discovery and All Other Pre-Trial Deadlines Pending
Disposition of Its Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 24].
The Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint in the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, West Virginia on December 12, 2013. The complaint raises five
claims: (1) violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(“RICO”); (2) violations of the West Virginia Unfair Trade Practices Act; (3) violations of
the Discount Medical Plan Organizations and Discount Prescription Drug Plan
Organizations Act; (4) bad faith and breach of contract; (5) fraud; and (6)
unconscionability [Doc. 6-2]. On January 29, 2014, Defendants NBLA and American
Medical and Life Insurance Company removed this case to this Court. The next day,
the Court entered a first order and notice regarding discovery and scheduling

conference. On February 21, 2014, NBLA filed a motion to dismiss.
On February 24, 2014, NBLA filed its Motion to Stay. In this motion, NBLA
requests that the Court stay discovery and all other pre-trial deadlines until the Court
resolves its motion to dismiss. It argues, among other things, that a stay “would
promote judicial efficiency by ensuring that the parties’ and the Court’s resources are
not wasted on needless, time-consuming discovery and other pretrial activities if the
Court agrees with NBLA that Plaintiff’s claims fail as a matter of law.” 4 at 1.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) pertinently provides that “[t]he court may,
for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from
expense, including.

.

.

.

.

.

undue burden or

forbidding the disclosure or discovery [or] specifying terms,

including time and place, for the disclosure or discovery.” FED. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A)-(B).
A district court has discretion to stay discovery pending disposition of a dispositive
motion. Sheehan v. United States, No. 5:1 ICVI7O, 2012 WL 1142709, at *1 (N.D. W.
Va. Apr. 4, 2012). At the same time, “the mere filing of a dispositive motion does not
entitle the moving party to a stay of discovery.” j4. at *2.
Upon review of NBLA’s motion, the Court does not find good cause to grant it.
Specifically, the Court finds it is inappropriate to grant a stay based solely upon the
likelihood of success of a motion that NBLA claims is dispositive. Granting a stay also
would delay this matter’s progression as to the Defendants that have not filed a motion
to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court DENIES NBLA’s Motion to Stay Discovery and All
Other Pre-Trial Deadlines Pending Disposition of Its Motion to Dismiss.
It is so ORDERED.

2

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to counsel of record herein.
DATED: February 26, 2014.

GINA GROH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3