Bradbury v. Bryan County, Georgia

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION SARAH BRADBURY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV423-224 ) BRYAN COUNTY, GEORGIA, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER Plaintiff filed this action in the Superior Court of Bryan County on July 7, 2023. Doc. 1-1 at 3. Defendants removed it to this Court. Doc. 1. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, doc. 13, and Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, doc. 15. This Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint without prejudice, and directed Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint within 14 days. Doc. 29. Plaintiff complied, doc. 30, and Defendants responded with a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint on shotgun pleading grounds. Doc. 31. This Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint but noted that “Defendants are free to file dispositive motion(s) in the future that challenge the sufficiency of the [Second Amended Complaint’s] allegations to support the various claims and requests for

relief asserted therein.” Doc. 35 at 8. Since then, the parties have submitted a Rule 26(f) Report, doc. 36, and Defendants have filed another Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, doc. 37, and a

Motion to Stay Discovery pending resolution of their pending Motion to Dismiss, doc. 39. Plaintiff did not timely respond to Defendants’ Motion

to Stay, indicating a lack of opposition. See S.D. Ga. L. Civ. R. 7.5. That Motion is now ripe for review. A court has “broad discretion” in determining whether to grant a

stay of discovery. Rivas v. The Bank of New York Mellon, 676 F. App’x 926, 932 (11th Cir. 2017). The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that it is appropriate for the Court dispose of “[f]acial challenges to the legal

sufficiency of a claim or defense, such as a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim for relief,” before the parties engage in costly and potentially unnecessary discovery. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp.,

123 F.3d 1353, 1367-68 (11th Cir. 1997). When “deciding whether to stay discovery pending resolution of a pending motion, the Court inevitably must balance the harm produced by a delay in discovery against the possibility that the motion will be granted and entirely eliminate the need for such discovery.” SP

Frederica, LLC v. Glynn Cnty., 2015 WL 5242830, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 8, 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997)). In evaluating stays of discovery

pending resolution of dispositive motions, “a court must take a ‘preliminary peek’ . . . to assess the likelihood that the motion will be

granted.” Taylor v. Jackson, 2017 WL 71654, at *1 n.2 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 6, 2017) (quoting Sams v. GA West Gate, LLC, 2016 WL 3339764, at *6 (S.D. Ga. June 10, 2016)). “[A] stay should be granted only where the motion

to dismiss appears, upon preliminary review, to be clearly meritorious and truly case dispositive.” Sams, 2016 WL 3339764 at *6. “[A] request to stay discovery pending a resolution of a motion is rarely appropriate

unless resolution of the motion will dispose of the entire case.” CSX Transp., Inc. v. United States, 2014 WL 11429178, at *1 (S.D. Ga. May 30, 2014) (citing Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652).

As Defendants point out in their Motion to Stay, their pending Motion to Dismiss seeks “dismissal of all claims asserted against them in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint.” Doc. 39 at 3. Upon a preliminary review, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss does not appear to be meritless. See Arriaga-Zacarias v. Lewis Taylor Farms, Inc., 2008 WL 4544470, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 10, 2008) (granting a stay of discovery deadlines when

a motion to dismiss was not “meritless on its face”). Additionally, because Plaintiff did not voice any opposition to the stay, see generally docket, it

appears that Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by a stay. On balance, then, a stay is appropriate. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of their Motion to Dismiss, doc. 39. All discovery and discovery-related deadlines are STAYED until the District Judge rules on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, doc. 37. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate the parties’ Rule 26(f) Report, doc. 36. If any claims remain pending, and unless otherwise instructed by the District Judge, the parties are DIRECTED to confer and submit a renewed Rule 26(f) Report within fourteen days of the disposition of Defendants’ Motion

to Dismiss. SO ORDERED, this 12th day of May, 2025.

Lie Cheigiend fag. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA