United States District Court, D. Colorado
Kristen L. Mix United States Magistrate Judge.
matter is before the Court on the parties' Joint
Motion to Stay Pending MDL Transfer Decision
[#13] (the “Motion”). The parties
represent that this matter is set for a hearing on January
25, 2018, before the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (the “JPML”) on the
issue of whether to transfer this case to the District of
South Carolina. Motion [#13] at 2. The parties seek
a temporary stay of all proceedings until the JPML rules on
the motion to consolidate and transfer this case.
Id. at 3. For the following reasons, the Motion
[#13] is GRANTED.
a stay of proceedings in a case is generally disfavored, a
stay may be appropriate if an entire action could be
resolved. See Wason Ranch Corp. v. Hecla Mining
Co., No. 07-cv-00267-EWN-MEH, 2007 WL 1655362, at *1
(D. Colo. June 6, 2007) (“A stay of all discovery is
generally disfavored in this District.” (citation
omitted)); String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows,
Inc., No. 1:02-cv-01934-LTB-PAC, 2006 WL 894955, at *2
(D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006) (finding that a thirty-day stay of
discovery was appropriate when a motion to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction was pending); Nankivil v.
Lockheed Martin Corp., 216 F.R.D. 689, 692 (M.D. Fla.
2003) (stating that a stay may be appropriate if
“resolution of a preliminary motion may dispose of the
entire action”); 8 Charles Alan Wright, et al.,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 2040, at
521-22 (2d ed. 1994) (“[W]hen one issue may be
determinative of a case, the court has discretion to stay
discovery on other issues until the critical issue has been
decided.”); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 804 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(“When a particular issue may be dispositive, the court
may stay discovery concerning other issues until the critical
issue is resolved.”); Gilbert v. Ferry, 401
F.3d 411, 415-16 (6th Cir. 2005) (finding that ordering a
stay of discovery is not an abuse of discretion when a
defendant has filed a motion to dismiss challenging the
court's actual subject matter jurisdiction); Chavous
v. D.C. Fin. Responsibility & Mgmt. Assistance
Auth., 201 F.R.D. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2005) (“A stay of
discovery pending the determination of a dispositive motion
is an eminently logical means to prevent wasting the time and
effort of all concerned, and to make the most efficient use
of judicial resources.” (internal quotation omitted)).
Additionally, “[a]s a general rule, ‘courts
frequently grant stays pending a decision by the MDL panel
regarding whether to transfer a case.'” Lundy
v. C.B. Fleet Co., Inc., No. 09-cv-00802-WYD, 2009 WL
1965521, at *1 (quoting Good v. Prudential Ins. Co. of
Am., 5 F.Supp.2d 804, 809 (C.D. Cal. 1998)).
exercising its discretion, the Court considers the following
factors: (1) the interest of the plaintiff in proceeding
expeditiously with discovery and the potential prejudice to
the plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on the defendant;
(3) the convenience to the Court of staying discovery; (4)
the interests of nonparties in either staying or proceeding
with discovery; and (5) the public interest in either staying
or proceeding with discovery. String Cheese
Incident, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (citing FDIC v.
Renda, No. 85-2216-O, 1987 WL 348635, at *2 (D. Kan.
Aug. 6, 1987)).
respect to the first and second factors, staying discovery
would apparently not prejudice or impose a burden on any
party, as they jointly request the stay. The Court therefore
finds that the first and second String Cheese
Incident factors weigh in favor of a stay.
respect to the third factor, a stay of discovery would
conserve the Court's time and resources. It is certainly
more convenient for the Court to stay discovery until it is
clear that the case will proceed in this jurisdiction.
See Chavous, 201 F.R.D. at 5 (staying discovery
pending decision that would fully resolve the case
“furthers the ends of economy and efficiency, since if
[the motion] is granted, there will be no need for [further
proceedings]”). Furthermore, the parties have only
requested a temporary stay until the JPML rules on the motion
to transfer and consolidate. Motion [#13] at 3. The
Court therefore finds that the third String Cheese
Incident factor weighs heavily in favor of staying
respect to the fourth factor, there are no identified
nonparties with significant particularized interests in this
case. Accordingly, the fourth String Cheese Incident
factor neither weighs in favor nor against staying discovery.
respect to the fifth and final factor, the Court finds that
the public's only interest in this case is a general
interest in its efficient and just resolution. Avoiding
wasteful efforts by the Court clearly serves this interest.
Thus, the fifth String Cheese Incident factor weighs
in favor of staying discovery.
the relevant factors, the Court concludes that a temporary
stay of discovery while the parties await resolution of the
motion pending before the JPML is appropriate. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#13]
is GRANTED. Discovery in this case is
STAYED until resolution of the motion pending before
the JPML. The parties shall file a Notice with the
Court within 10 days of the issuance of a
decision by the JPML.
FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling
Conference set for January 31, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. and all
related deadlines are VACATED.
 “[#13]” is an example of
the convention the Court uses to identify the docket number
assigned to a specific paper by the Court's case
management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). This