Order Granting Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Stay

PATRICIA D. BARKSDALE, Magistrate Judge.

The defendant moves to stay discovery set to begin on April 8, 2016, until the Court decides his pending dispositive motion. Doc. 32 (motion for stay); Doc. 19 (motion to dismiss); Doc. 31 (case management and scheduling order). The plaintiff does not oppose the requested stay. Doc. 32 at 1.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) permits a court to stay discovery for good cause. Because neither party needs discovery before a court resolves a dispositive motion based solely on a legal matter, staying discovery until then avoids potentially needless cost.1 Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997). A stay is proper if resolution of a pending dispositive motion might dispose of the case but improper if discovery is necessary to respond to that motion. Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1560 (11th Cir. 1985).

The defendant has shown good cause for a staying discovery. Granting his dispositive motion would result in dismissal of the case. A stay will avoid potentially needless cost. The plaintiff does not oppose the stay, has not sought discovery to respond to the motion to dismiss, and has not suggested discovery is necessary to respond to the motion to dismiss. The defendant has shown no delay tactic or other improper motive.

The Court grants the defendant's motion to stay, Doc. 32, and stays discovery until further order. Because the stay may affect the remaining deadlines and dates in the case management and scheduling order, Doc. 31, the Court also stays those until further order.

Ordered.