Filed: Feb. 19, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 19, 2016
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY MICHAEL E. HEGARTY , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is a Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines, which the Court construes as a motion for a temporary stay of discovery [ filed February 18, 2016; docket #82 ]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and D.C. Colo. LCivR 72.1(c), this matter has been referred to this Court for disposition [docket #83]. The Court finds that oral argument would not assist the Court in its consideration of this matter. For
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY MICHAEL E. HEGARTY , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is a Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines, which the Court construes as a motion for a temporary stay of discovery [ filed February 18, 2016; docket #82 ]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and D.C. Colo. LCivR 72.1(c), this matter has been referred to this Court for disposition [docket #83]. The Court finds that oral argument would not assist the Court in its consideration of this matter. For t..
More
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
MICHAEL E. HEGARTY, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is a Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines, which the Court construes as a motion for a temporary stay of discovery [filed February 18, 2016; docket #82]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and D.C. Colo. LCivR 72.1(c), this matter has been referred to this Court for disposition [docket #83]. The Court finds that oral argument would not assist the Court in its consideration of this matter. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the motion.
The parties seek a temporary stay until March 15, 2016, at which time they will either file dismissal papers or a report on the status of settlement negotiations.
The decision to issue a protective order and thereby stay discovery rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Wang v. Hsu, 919 F.2d 130, 130 (10th Cir. 1990). Such protection is warranted, upon a showing of good cause, to "protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
A stay of all discovery is generally disfavored in this District. Chavez v. Young Am. Ins. Co., No. 06-cv-02419-PSF-BNB, 2007 WL 683973, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 2, 2007). Nevertheless, a stay may be appropriate if there is a possibility of resolution of the entire action. See Nankivil v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 216 F.R.D. 689, 692 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (citations omitted).
The following five factors guide the Court's determination:
(1) plaintiff's interests in proceeding expeditiously with the civil action and the potential prejudice to plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on the defendants; (3) the convenience to the court; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest.
String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 02-cv-01934-LTB-PAC, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006); see also Golden Quality Ice Cream Co. v. Deerfield Speciality Papers, Inc., 87 F.R.D. 53, 56 (E.D. Pa. 1980).
In weighing the factors set forth for determining the propriety of a stay, the Court finds that a temporary stay of discovery is appropriate in this case. With respect to the first two factors, the Court balances a plaintiff's desire to proceed expeditiously with the case against the burden on a defendant of going forward. Here, the parties agree to the requested stay and, thus, no desire to proceed at this time need be considered.
Consideration of the remaining String Cheese factors does not tip the balance in favor of either position, particularly here where the stay requested is relatively brief. Defendants make no argument concerning the interests of non-parties or the public, and the Court perceives minimal effect, if any, resulting from of a temporary stay of these proceedings.
Therefore, weighing the factors necessary to consider whether to grant the requested stay, the Court finds that a temporary stay of discovery is justified and will be imposed in this case.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines, which the Court construes as a motion for a temporary stay of discovery [filed February 18, 2016; docket #82] is granted. A temporary stay of discovery is hereby imposed until March 15, 2016, at which time the parties shall file dismissal papers or a report reflecting the status of their settlement negotiations.
