United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
B. SMITH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
case comes before the Court without a hearing on Defendant
Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court's Motion to Stay or
Abate Pending Determination of its Motion to Dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 75). Plaintiff opposes the
motion which she views as an attempt to prevent her from
producing evidence in support of further amending her
complaint (Doc. 76 at 3). Specifically, Plaintiff refers to
emails she believes are evidence that she was “mocked
and falsely judged, without her knowledge, by” the
Court Administrator and Clerk of Court for the Eighteenth
Judicial Circuit of Florida (Id., at 5). Plaintiff
also believes the emails show improper ex parte
communications with that court (Id., at 6).
courts have inherent power to control their dockets and
manage their cases, including by staying discovery. Perez
v. Miami-Dade Cty., 297 F.3d 1255, 1263 (11th Cir.
2002); The Andersons, Inc. v. Enviro Granulation,
LLC, No. 8:13-cv-3004-T-33MAP, 2014 WL 4059886 at *2
(M.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2014). The Eleventh Circuit has
“emphasized the responsibility of trial courts to
manage pretrial discovery properly in order to avoid a
massive waste of judicial and private resources and a loss of
society's confidence in the courts' ability to
administer justice.” Perez, 297 F.3d at 1263
(internal quotation marks omitted). “Granting a
discovery stay until an impending motion to dismiss is
resolved is a proper exercise of that responsibility.”
Rivas v. The Bank of New York Melon, 676 Fed.Appx.
926, 932 (11th Cir. 2017). The party seeking the stay has the
burden of showing good cause and reasonableness.
Holsapple v. Strong Indus., No. 2:12-cv-355-UA-SPC,
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128009, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 10,
2012); S.D. v. St. Johns Cnty. Sch. Dist., No.
3:09-cv-250-J-20TEM, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97835, at * 4-5
(M.D. Fla. Oct. 1, 2009) (citing to Feldman v.
Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997)); McCabe
v. Foley, 233 F.R.D. 683, 687 (M.D. Fla. 2006).
deciding whether to grant a stay the district court,
[M]ust 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. This involves
weighing the likely costs and burdens of proceeding with
discovery. It may be helpful to take a preliminary peek at
the merits of the allegedly dispositive motion to see if on
its face there appears to be an immediate and clear
possibility that it will be granted.
Simpson v. Specialty Retail Concepts, Inc., 121
F.R.D. 261, 263 (M.D. N.C. Aug. 15, 1988); see also Koock
v. Sugar & Felsenthal, LLP, No. 8:09-cv-609-T-17EAJ,
2009 WL 2579307, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 19, 2009) (“In
deciding whether to stay discovery pending resolution of a
motion to dismiss ... the court must take a
‘preliminary peek' at the merits of the dispositive
motion to see if it ‘appears to be clearly meritorious
and truly case dispositive.'”) (citing
McCabe, 233 F.R.D. at 685).
Court has reviewed Plaintiff's second amended complaint,
Defendants' motions to dismiss and Plaintiff's
responses to those motions. After due consideration of the
parties' papers, this Court entered a report and
recommendation that the motions to dismiss should be granted
and that this case should be dismissed with prejudice (Doc.
79). In making this recommendation, the Court considered all
the emails Plaintiff desires to present as evidence. The
Court's report and recommendation constitutes a finding
of “an immediate and clear possibility” that
movant's motion to dismiss will be granted. And, while
this Court has recommended that Plaintiff's motion to
further amend her complaint should be denied, if the motion
to amend is granted, this Order will not prevent Plaintiff
from incorporating the emails into a further amended
the Court finds that a stay is warranted and therefore, the
motion is GRANTED. All discovery between
Plaintiff and Defendant the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court
of Florida is STAYED until further Court
 Judge Smith is temporarily handling
this case while Judge Kelly is ...