ORDER

ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.

In the instant action, Plaintiff asserts various claims against Defendants regarding the procurement and sale of transvaginal mesh—a medical device designed to be permanently implanted into women's bodies. (Doc. 1.) Due to the pendency of similar federal actions throughout the country, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL Panel") has transferred like-actions to the Southern District of West Virginia for consolidated pretrial proceedings. (Doc. 25-1 ("Consolidation Order").) Notably, the Consolidation Order aims to "eliminate duplicative discovery[,] prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings[,] and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel[,] and the judiciary. (Id. at 3.)

Pursuant to this goal, the MDL Panel recently issued an Order conditionally transferring this action to the Southern District of West Virginia for coordinated pretrial proceedings in Multidistrict Litigation No. 2326. (Doc. 25-2 ("Conditional Transfer Order").) According to Defendant Boston Scientific Corporation ("Boston Scientific"), Plaintiff has filed a notice opposing the Conditional Transfer Order, and her motion to vacate is due on May 2, 2017. (Doc. 25, p. 3 n.1.) As such, Boston Scientific moves to stay the instant action until the MDL Panel resolves the issues raised by Plaintiff's forthcoming motion to vacate. (Doc. 25 ("Motion to Stay").) Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion to Stay. (Doc. 27.)

The Court's authority to stay proceedings derives from the "power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Rambaran v. Park Square Enters., Inc., No. 6:08-cv-247-Orl-19GJK, 2008 WL 4371356, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 22, 2008) (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). But "[w]hen a district court exercises its discretion to stay a case pending the resolution of related proceedings in another forum, the district court must [properly limit] the scope of the stay." Ortega Trujillo v. Conover & Co. Commc'ns, 221 F.3d 1262, 1264 (11th Cir. 2000). Such stay must not be indefinite. See id.

Upon consideration, the Court agrees that a limited stay would conserve judicial resources, prevent duplication of the litigants' efforts, and streamline the resolution of this federal action. Importantly, the requested stay is sufficiently limited in scope, agreed to by the parties,1and consistent with the rationale set forth in the MDL Panel's Consolidation Order.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

DONE AND ORDERED.