Werner v. Wall et al

Filing 26

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 4/12/2016 GRANTING 23 Defendant's motion to stay discovery deadlines until the court decides the defendant's motion to dismiss. (cc: all counsel; by US Mail to plaintiff) (pwm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
PATRICK JAMES WERNER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-cv-104-pp

DEBBIE LARRABEE,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
(DKT. NO. 23)
____________________________________________________________________________
On April 1, 2016, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s
case based on the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Belleau v. Wall, 811 F.3d 929
(7th Cir. 2016). The defendant also asked the court to stay discovery pending
briefing and resolution of her motion to dismiss.
Courts have considerable discretion in managing the timing of discovery.
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (“The District Court has broad
discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own
docket.”). Courts have long exercised that discretion to stay discovery after a
timely-filed motion to dismiss. In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litig., 231 F.R.D.
331, 336 (N.D. Ill. 2005). The mere filing of the motion does not automatically
stay discovery, and courts do not automatically grant a stay simply because a
defendant asks for one, but “such stays are granted with substantial
frequency.” Id. (citations omitted).

1

A pleading that fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8 “does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with
nothing more than conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79
(2009). If, after full briefing, the court grants the defendant’s motion to dismiss
and thus does not allow the plaintiff to proceed with the case, the defendant’s
time and cost in conducting discovery will have been for nothing. It makes little
sense to require the parties to conduct discovery until the court decides
whether to allow the case to proceed.
The court GRANTS the defendant’s motion to stay discovery, and
ORDERS that all discovery deadlines are STAYED until such time as the court
decides the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 23.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 12th day of April, 2016.

2