Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02569-MSK-KLM.
December 20, 2010
ORDER GRANTING STAY
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery [Docket No. 15; Filed December 20, 2010]. Defendant seeks to stay the case until resolution of its Motion to Dismiss on the basis of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction [Docket No. 14]. Plaintiff does not oppose a stay pending the outcome of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Motion [#15] at 1. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. Although stays are generally disfavored, the Court has broad discretion to stay an action while a dispositive motion is pending pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 1:02-cv-01934-LTB-PAC, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006) (unpublished decision). Indeed, "a court may decide that in a particular case it would be wise to stay proceeding on the merits until [certain challenges] have been resolved." 8 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2040, at 521-22 (2d ed. 1994) ("[W]hen one issue may be determinative of a case, the court has discretion to stay discovery on other issues until the critical issue has been decided."); see also Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 804 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("When a particular issue may be dispositive, the court may stay discovery concerning other issues until the critical issue is resolved.").
In weighing the factors set forth for determining the propriety of a stay, the Court finds that a stay is justified here. See String Cheese, 2006 WL 894955, at *2. First, the Court considers Plaintiff's interest in proceeding with her case. Second, the Court considers the burden on Defendant in going forward. Here, both parties appear to agree that a stay is appropriate during the pendency of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss which seeks to dismiss Plaintiff's case on the basis of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Courts have routinely recognized that a stay is warranted while the issue of jurisdiction is being resolved. See, e.g., Gilbert v. Ferry, 401 F.3d 411, 415-16 (6th Cir. 2005) (finding stay permissible pending ruling on dispositive motion involving jurisdictional issue); Enplaner, Inc. v. Marsh, 11 F.3d 1284, 1291 (5th Cir. 1994) (same); Chavous v. D.C. Fin. Responsibility Mgmt. Assistance Auth., 201 F.R.D. 1, 2-5 (D.D.C. 2001) (same). Considering that the parties' interests are aligned, the first two factors weigh in favor of a stay.
The Court also considers its own convenience, the interests of nonparties, and the public interest in general. See String Cheese, 2006 WL 894955, at *2. None of these factors prompts the Court to reach a different result. In fact, the Court notes that neither its nor the parties' time is well-served by being involved in the "struggle over the substance of suit" when, as here, a fully dispositive motion is pending. See Democratic Rep. of Congo v. FG Hemisphere Assocs., LLC, No. 07-7047, 2007 WL 4165397 at *2 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 27, 2007) (unpublished opinion) (noting that the reason jurisdictional defenses should be raised at the outset is to avoid unnecessary litigation); see Chavous, 201 F.R.D. at 2 ("A stay of discovery pending the determination of a dispositive motion `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.'" (citations omitted)). Likewise, the imposition of a stay pending the decision on a dispositive motion that would fully resolve the case "furthers the ends of economy and efficiency, since if [the motion] is granted, there will be no need for [further case proceedings]." Chavous, 201 F.R.D. at 5. Finally, the Court is unpersuaded that this case triggers a compelling nonparty or public interest which would prompt a different result.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is STAYED until such time as the Motion to Dismiss [#14] is resolved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference set for January 13, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. is vacated and will be reset, if appropriate, upon resolution of the Motion to Dismiss.
Dated: December 20, 2010