Rivera-Lopez v. Lockheed Martin Corporation

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

AMANDA BETH RIVERA-LOPEZ, ) Individually and as Executor of ) the Estate of EMIL ) RIVERA-LOPEZ, deceased; ) J.N.; J.J.; W.W.; M.P.; and C.H., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CV419-211 ) GENERAL ELECTRIC ) COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER Defendant General Electric Company’s (“GE”) motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, doc. 94, is pending before the District Judge. Doc. 95. The Court directed the parties to either confer and submit a Rule 26(f) Report, or file a motion to stay discovery pending disposition of the motion to dismiss. Doc. 107 at 2. The parties subsequently filed a Joint Motion to Stay Discovery. Doc. 108. For good cause shown, the joint request for a discovery stay is GRANTED, in part and DENIED, in part. Doc. 108. 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).

The parties jointly move for a discovery stay, and they do not indicate that they would be prejudiced by a stay. See generally doc. 108. Upon preliminary review, the motion to dismiss does not appear to be

meritless. See doc. 95; see also 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 is not “meritless on its

face”). Additionally, a ruling on the motion to dismiss could be case- dispositive. See doc. 95 at 1 (requesting dismissal of “all Plaintiffs’ claims against [GE.]”). On balance, then, a stay is appropriate.

The parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Discovery is GRANTED, in part, doc. 108, and all deadlines in this case are STAYED pending disposition of the motion to dismiss, doc. 95. Upon disposition of the motion to dismiss, doc. 95, the Clerk is DIRECTED to lift the stay. If the case remains pending after disposition of the motion to dismiss, the parties

are DIRECTED to confer and submit a Rule 26(f) Report no later than fourteen days from the date of the Order disposing of the motion to

dismiss. The joint motion also requests that “all deadlines . . . including . . . deadlines in the Court’s August 4, 2022 Order[, doc. 107] . . . be stayed”

pending disposition of the motion to dismiss. Doc. 108 at 3-4. In that Order, the Court denied GE’s unopposed request for leave to file an exhibit to its reply in support of its motion to dismiss, doc. 106, under

seal. Doc. 107 at 2-3. The Court directed GE to “file any renewed motion to seal, or file a notice withdrawing the exhibit from consideration for purposes of the motion to dismiss, no later than [August 18, 2022].” Id.

at 6-7. Since the exhibit and reply are relevant to the District Judge’s disposition of the motion to dismiss, to the extent the parties seek a stay of that deadline, that request is DENIED. Doc. 108, in part. GE is still

DIRECTED to file any renewed motion to seal, or file a notice withdrawing the exhibit from consideration for purposes of the motion to dismiss, no later than August 18, 2022. SO ORDERED, this 9th day of August, 2022.

CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA