Jones v. PVHA/SIMS-Savannah Commons, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

VINCENT JONES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV420-007 ) THRIVE SENIOR LIVING, LLC ) and JOYCE CROWDER MCBRIDE, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Before the Court is defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending the disposition of defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. Doc. 55. The Court has discretion to stay discovery pending resolution of a motion, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), but when doing so, must take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of a dispositive motion to see if it “appears to be clearly meritorious and truly case dispositive.” Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652–53 (M.D. Fla. 1997). “[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). Here, defendants concede that their motion “would not be dispositive of the entire case” as it would resolve only claims I and II, but argue that the

stay is appropriate as the granting of the motion to dismiss would obviate the need for “approximately 50% of the discovery needed to properly defend this matter.” Doc. 55-1 at 3-4. This Court has, on occasion, permitted stays when success on a dispositive motion might narrow the

scope of discovery. See United States ex rel. Jolie Johnson v. Spanish Oaks Hospice, Inc., No. CV415-148, doc. 47 (S.D. Ga. July 19, 2017). Based on that preliminary peek of its merits, however, the motion to dismiss is not

so obviously meritorious as to warrant a stay. Therefore, the motion to

stay discovery is DENIED. Doc. 55. SO ORDERED, this 17th day of February, 2021.

( hadpeo~A le CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA