Seltzer v. Gensler
This text of Seltzer v. Gensler (Seltzer v. Gensler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SUSAN SELTZER,
Petitioner, Civil Action No. 21-2093 (JMC)
v.
GARY GENSLER ET AL.,
Respondents.
ORDER
Before the Court is Respondents’ Motion to Stay, ECF 15, in which Respondents ask that
the Court stay discovery and related activities (including the scheduling of disclosures and timing
of discovery) pending the Court’s resolution of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF 14.
“[T]he decision whether to stay discovery is committed to the sound discretion of the
district court judge.” White v. Fraternal Ord. of Police, 909 F.2d 512, 517 (D.C. Cir. 1990)
(citations omitted). Courts in this District have often stayed discovery when, as here, “a motion
that would be thoroughly dispositive of the claims in the Complaint is pending.” Loumiet v. United
States, 225 F. Supp. 3d 79, 82 (D.D.C. 2016) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Indeed, it is “well settled” that discovery is generally inappropriate in that scenario. Id. (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted).
Given the pending Motion to Dismiss, the Court concludes that a stay of discovery is
warranted to preserve both the Court’s and the Parties’ time, effort, and other resources. See Sai v.
Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 99 F. Supp. 3d 50, 58 (D.D.C. 2015). Though Petitioner Susan Seltzer
asserts that “[i]mmediate discovery is critical to protect [her] from further harm (defamation),”
1 ECF 21 at 7, she does not actually specify how delaying discovery until the Court resolves the
recently briefed Motion to Dismiss—which may determine whether any discovery is necessary in
this case—will prejudice her, and the Court does not believe that prejudice will result.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion to Stay, ECF 15, is
GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 16, 2022
Jia M. Cobb U.S. District Court Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Seltzer v. Gensler, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seltzer-v-gensler-dcd-2022.