Shavondee Bailey v. Grainger Nissan of Savannah, LLC and Credit Acceptance Corporation

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION SHAVONDEE BAILEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV426-149 ) GRAINGER NISSAN OF ) SAVANNAH, LLC and CREDIT ) ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER Defendant Credit Acceptance Corporation (“Credit Acceptance”) moves to stay discovery in this case pending resolution of its Motion to Compel Arbitration. Doc. 8. Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion. See generally docket; see also S.D. Ga. L. Civ. R. 7.5. It does not appear that Defendant Grainger Nissan of Savannah, LLC (“Grainger Nissan”) has been served, and therefore it has not appeared and has not indicated any opposition to the request. See doc. 1 at 2 (indicating that, at the time of removal, Grainger Nissan had not been served); see also generally docket. 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); see also Phipps v. Blakeney, 8 F.3d 788, 790 (11th Cir. 1993) (“The district court has broad discretion to control discovery.”). 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)). Here, considering this balance, and given no party opposes the request, a stay is appropriate. See, e.g., PhosAsset GmbH v. Gulfstream

Aerospace Corp., 2021 WL 9217154, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 6, 2021) (granting stay pending motion to compel arbitration). The Motion to Stay is, therefore, GRANTED. Doc. 8. Accordingly, all discovery deadlines in

this case, including the deadline to confer and submit a report under Rule 26(f), are STAYED pending the District Judge’s resolution of Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, doc. 7.1 Should any claims

1 Nothing in this Order alters Plaintiff’s deadline to serve Defendant Grainger Nissan. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); see also Wilson v. Hearos, LLC, 2023 WL 4406024, at *6 (S.D. Ga. July 7, 2023) (“Rule 4(m)’s requirements begin upon the day a case was removed to federal court.” (internal quotations, citations, and alterations omitted)). remain pending in this Court after the District Judge’s resolution of the Motion to Compel Arbitration, the parties are DIRECTED to confer and submit a report as required by Rule 26(f) within 14 days of such disposition. SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of July, 2026. Se L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA