Banks v. Pasquotank County

E.D. North Carolina

Banks v. Pasquotank County

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 2, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00023

StatusUnknown

This text of Banks v. Pasquotank County (Banks v. Pasquotank County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Banks v. Pasquotank County, (E.D.N.C. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTHERN DIVISION No. 2:25-CV-23-BO DARRELL BANKS, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ORDER PASQUOTANK COUNTY, Defendant. )

This matter is before the court on Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending disposition of its pending motion to dismiss. [DE-13]. Plaintiff does not oppose entry of a stay. Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a court to issue an order limiting or staying discovery. Specifically, a court has discretion to stay discovery until pending dispositive motions are resolved. See Yongo v. Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am., No. 5:07-CV-94-D, 2008 WL 516744, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 25, 2008). In certain cases, a stay of discovery may be appropriate to prevent a waste of time and resources by the parties and to make efficient use of judicial resources. United States v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., No. 2:07-0299, 2007 WL 3051449, at *2 (S.D. W. Va. Oct. 18, 2007). “Factors favoring issuance of a stay include the potential for the dispositive motion to terminate all the claims in the case or all the claims against particular defendants, strong support for the dispositive motion on the merits, and irrelevancy of the discovery at issue to the dispositive motion.” Yongo, 2008 WL 516744, at *2 (quoting Tilley v. United States, 270 F. Supp. 2d 731, 735 (M.D.N.C. 2003)); see Ivery v. N.C. Ass’n of Educators, Inc., No, 2:22-CV-43-M, 2023 WL 2192373, at *1 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 23, 2023) (allowing stay where defendant’s pending

motion to dismiss, if allowed, would terminate the litigation, and Plaintiff had not asserted that discovery is necessary to resolve the motion). Here, the balance of factors weighs in favor of allowing the motion. The Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss, if allowed, will terminate the litigation, and discovery is unnecessary to decide the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, for good cause shown, the motion is allowed, and the case is stayed pending resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The parties shall file an amended discovery plan within twenty-one (21) days of the court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss should any of the claims survive. SO ORDERED, the @ day of September, 2025.

United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTHERN DIVISION No. 2:25-CV-23-BO DARRELL BANKS, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ORDER PASQUOTANK COUNTY, Defendant. )

This matter is before the court on Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending disposition of its pending motion to dismiss. [DE-13]. Plaintiff does not oppose entry of a stay. Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a court to issue an order limiting or staying discovery. Specifically, a court has discretion to stay discovery until pending dispositive motions are resolved. See Yongo v. Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am., No. 5:07-CV-94-D, 2008 WL 516744, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 25, 2008). In certain cases, a stay of discovery may be appropriate to prevent a waste of time and resources by the parties and to make efficient use of judicial resources. United States v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., No. 2:07-0299, 2007 WL 3051449, at *2 (S.D. W. Va. Oct. 18, 2007). “Factors favoring issuance of a stay include the potential for the dispositive motion to terminate all the claims in the case or all the claims against particular defendants, strong support for the dispositive motion on the merits, and irrelevancy of the discovery at issue to the dispositive motion.” Yongo, 2008 WL 516744, at *2 (quoting Tilley v. United States, 270 F. Supp. 2d 731, 735 (M.D.N.C. 2003)); see Ivery v. N.C. Ass’n of Educators, Inc., No, 2:22-CV-43-M, 2023 WL 2192373, at *1 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 23, 2023) (allowing stay where defendant’s pending

motion to dismiss, if allowed, would terminate the litigation, and Plaintiff had not asserted that discovery is necessary to resolve the motion). Here, the balance of factors weighs in favor of allowing the motion. The Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss, if allowed, will terminate the litigation, and discovery is unnecessary to decide the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, for good cause shown, the motion is allowed, and the case is stayed pending resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The parties shall file an amended discovery plan within twenty-one (21) days of the court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss should any of the claims survive. SO ORDERED, the @ day of September, 2025.

United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Banks v. Pasquotank County, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banks-v-pasquotank-county-nced-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack