Trinidad v. CVS Health Corporation

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION

RAUL ANTONIO TRINIDAD,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 5:23-cv-28-TJC-PRL

CVS HEALTH CORPORATION and CVS PHARMACY, INC.,

Defendants.

ORDER Before the Court, upon referral, are pro se Plaintiff’s motion for discovery and Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending the outcome of its motion to dismiss. (Docs. 33 & 34). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a pending motion to dismiss amounts to good cause for the issuance of a stay on discovery when “the potential harm associated with delaying the discovery process [is outweighed by] . . . the possibility that the motion to dismiss will be granted and obviate the need for discovery altogether.” Heghmann v. Hafiani, No. 3:20-CV-670-BJD-JBT, 2021 WL 8775756, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2021) (citing Gibbons v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, No. 3:14-CV-1315-J-39MCR, 2015 WL 12840959, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 18, 2015)). Here, the balance favors granting a stay, as any delay in the discovery process is outweighed by the pending report recommending dismissal (Doc. 39),1

1 Previously, Plaintiff was given an opportunity to amend his complaint with the Court’s adoption of the first report, recommending dismissal of his claims due the complaint being a shotgun pleading and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Docs. 20 & 25). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (Doc. 28) and Defendant moved to dismiss that complaint. (Doc. 31). based on the Court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims against Defendant. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to stay (Doc. 34) is granted until the issuance of a case management order, and pro se Plaintiff's motion for discovery (Doc. 33) is denied as moot. DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on July 28, 2023. 9 hart ants PHILIP R. LAMMENS United States Magistrate Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Party