United States District Court, S.D. Florida
RANDY ROSENBERG, D.C., P.A., a/a/o Danielle Russell, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant GEICO
General Insurance Company's (“Defendant”)
Motion to Stay Discovery, ECF No. 
(“Motion”). Defendant moves the Court to stay
discovery pending the Court's resolution of its Motion to
Dismiss First Amended Complaint, ECF No.  (“Motion
to Dismiss”). Plaintiff filed his Response to the
Motion, ECF No. , and Defendant filed a Reply. ECF No.
. The Court has reviewed the Motion, all opposing and
supporting submissions, the record in this case, the
applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court denies the Motion.
district court “has broad discretion to stay
proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own
docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706
(1997). Motions to stay discovery “are not favored
because when discovery is delayed or prolonged it can create
case management problems which impede the Court's
responsibility to expedite discovery and cause unnecessary
litigation expenses and problems.” Feldman v.
Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. FIa. 1997).
“[D]iscovery stay motions are generally denied except
where a specific showing of prejudice or No.
19-cv-61422-BLOOM/Valle burdensomeness is made.”
Montoya v. PNC Bank, N.A., No. 14-20474-CIV, 2014 WL
2807617, at *2 (S.D. Fla. June 20, 2014). The party moving
for a stay of discovery has “the burden of showing good
cause and reasonableness.” Feldman, 176 F.R.D.
basis upon which Defendant moves to stay discovery rests
solely on the contention that the Motion to Dismiss may
dispose of this action in its entirety. Defendant's
argument relies upon Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp.,
in which the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit stated
that “[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, should . . . be resolved
before discovery begins.” 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th
Cir. 1997) (footnote omitted).
reliance on Chudasama is misplaced.
Chudasama does not state a general rule that
discovery be stayed pending resolution of a motion to
dismiss. Reilly v. Amy's Kitchen, Inc., No.
13-21525-CIV, 2013 WL 3929709, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 31,
2013) (“[T]here is no general rule that discovery be
stayed while a pending motion to dismiss is
resolved.”); Gannon v. Flood, No.
08-60059-CIV, 2008 WL 793682, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 24, 2008)
(Chudasama “does not indicate a broad rule that
discovery should be deferred whenever there is a pending
motion to dismiss.”); Bocciolone v. Solowsky,
No. 08-20200-CIV, 2008 WL 2906719, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 24,
2008) (“[C]ourts have consistently rejected any per
se requirement to stay discovery pending resolution of a
dispositive motion.”). In fact, “[m]otions to
stay discovery pending ruling on a dispositive motion are
generally disfavored in this district.” Flecha v.
Neighbors Moving Servs., Inc., 944 F.Supp.2d 1201, 1203
(S.D. Fla. 2013); Ray v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No.
12-61528-CIV, 2012 WL 5471793, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2012)
(Chudasama court “confronted a very specific
situation involving a threefold problem - unjustifiable delay
by the district court in ruling on the motion to dismiss, an
erroneous decision to compel discovery from the defendant
prior to No. 19-cv-61422-BLOOM/Valle adjudicating the motion
to dismiss, and an especially dubious fraud claim that was
likely to be dismissed”). Unlike the exceptional
circumstances presented in Chudasama, where the
district court did not rule on a motion to dismiss for over a
year and a half, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss has been
ripe since only November 5, 2018, less than one month before
the Decision One Parties filed the instant motion.
it is not necessary for the Court to, in effect, decide the
motion to dismiss to determine whether the motion to stay
discovery should be granted, it is necessary for the Court to
‘take a preliminary peek' at the merits of the
motion to dismiss to see if it appears to be clearly
meritorious and truly case dispositive.”
Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652-53. “[A] motion to
stay discovery . . . is rarely appropriate unless resolution
of the motion will dispose of the entire case.”
Bocciolone, 2008 WL 2906719, at *2. Further,
“discovery stay motions are generally denied except
where a specific showing of prejudice or burdensomeness is
made or where a statute dictates that a stay is appropriate
or mandatory.” Montoya, 2014 WL 2807617, at
*2. “Ultimately, the proponent of the stay bears the
burden of demonstrating its necessity, appropriateness, and
reasonableness.” Ray, 2012 WL 5471793, at *1.
taken a “preliminary peek” at the pending motion,
this case does not present the type of an “especially
dubious” claim faced by the Chudasama Court
where disposing of the case by motion to dismiss would avoid
“needless and extensive discovery.” See
S.K.Y. Mgmt. LLC v. Greenshoe, Ltd., No. 06-21722-CIV,
2007 WL 201258, at *1-2 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2007) (rejecting
stay where defendant raised colorable legal defenses, but
plaintiff presented strong rebuttal arguments that could
result in its claims surviving a motion to dismiss);
Ray, 2012 WL 5471793, at *2 (rejecting stay where
“the Court [could] not say that [the] case is surely
destined for dismissal”); Bocciolone, 2008 WL
2906719, at *2; (rejecting stay where court undertook a No.
19-cv-61422-BLOOM/Valle “cursory examination of the
merits of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and there [was]
sufficient reason to question whether Defendants' Motion
will prevail on all claims”); Montoya, 2014 WL
2807617, at *2 (rejecting stay where the court's
“incomplete and preliminary review suggests that the
motions may not be the ‘slam-dunk' submissions the
Defendants describe them to be”); Flecha, 944
F.Supp.2d at 1203 (rejecting stay where “genuine
dispute” presented in parties' papers).
even if the Motion to Dismiss is resolved in Defendant's
favor, the case will be remanded back to the state court from
which it was removed. Coccaro v. Geico Gen. Ins.
Co., 648 Fed.Appx. 876, 881 (11th Cir. 2016). The
Defendant has acknowledged this procedural outcome.
See ECF No.  at 3 n.2. As such, disposing of
this case by motion to dismiss will not avoid “needless
and extensive discovery.” See S.K.Y. Mgmt.
LLC, 2007 WL 201258, at *1-2.
Defendant has failed to demonstrate good cause, the prejudice
it will suffer, or anything exceptional about this case to
warrant a stay of discovery. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's
Motion to Stay Discovery, ECF No. , is
DENIED. The parties shall proceed with
discovery, with all dates and deadlines remaining the same.