Filed: Jul. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER JEFFREY L. VIKEN , Chief District Judge . Plaintiffs brought this medical negligence action on behalf of their minor child, whom they allege was injured at birth by defendants. (Docket 24). Defendants Regina Reynolds and Children's Hospital Colorado Health Systems each moved to dismiss the complaint against them for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Dockets 40 & 46). Presently pending before the court are these defendants' motions to stay discovery until their motions to dismiss are res
Summary: ORDER JEFFREY L. VIKEN , Chief District Judge . Plaintiffs brought this medical negligence action on behalf of their minor child, whom they allege was injured at birth by defendants. (Docket 24). Defendants Regina Reynolds and Children's Hospital Colorado Health Systems each moved to dismiss the complaint against them for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Dockets 40 & 46). Presently pending before the court are these defendants' motions to stay discovery until their motions to dismiss are reso..
More
ORDER
JEFFREY L. VIKEN, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiffs brought this medical negligence action on behalf of their minor child, whom they allege was injured at birth by defendants. (Docket 24). Defendants Regina Reynolds and Children's Hospital Colorado Health Systems each moved to dismiss the complaint against them for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Dockets 40 & 46). Presently pending before the court are these defendants' motions to stay discovery until their motions to dismiss are resolved. (Dockets 42 & 48). In their motions, defendants each state plaintiffs oppose the requested stays. Id. However, plaintiffs did not file a written response to the motions as required by local rule. D.S.D. Civ. LR 7.1(B). The court accordingly considers the motions to stay discovery unopposed.1
"[A] stay of discovery is appropriate pending resolution of a potentially dispositive motion where the motion appear[s] to have substantial grounds or, stated another way, do[es] not appear to be without foundation in law." Johnson v. New York Univ. Sch. of Educ., 205 F.R.D. 433, 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803-04 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), (c); 26(b); 42(b)) ("When a particular issue may be dispositive, the court may stay discovery concerning other issues until the critical issue is resolved."); 8 Charles Alan Wright & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2040, at 521 (2d ed. 1994)). "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." Chavous v. D.C. Fin. Responsibility & Mgmt. Assistance Auth., 201 F.R.D. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2001) (internal quotation omitted).
Here, defendants' motions to dismiss do not appear to be clearly without foundation in law. If defendants' motions are successful, the complaint against them will be dismissed. Forcing them to undergo merits-related discovery at this stage of the case is unnecessary.2
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that defendants Regina Reynolds' and Children's Hospital Colorado Health Systems' motions to stay discovery (Dockets 42 & 48) are granted. If the court denies defendants' motions to dismiss, discovery shall resume with an order setting discovery deadlines.
