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 Discovery [#58] (the
“Motion”). The parties jointly ask the Court to
stay discovery in this case until after a ruling issues on
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint [#51], which was
fully briefed as of July 24, 2018. The requested amendment
includes new claims which “would significantly alter
the factual scope of this lawsuit and by implication, the
discovery needed to litigate the suit.” Motion
[#58] at 2. The current discovery deadline is July 31, 2018,
and the current dispositive motions deadline is August 31,
2018. See [#24]. Thus, the parties are concerned
that, should the Motion to Amend Complaint be granted,
extensions of these deadlines and expansion of discovery
would be required.
the stay of proceedings in a case is generally disfavored,
the Court has discretion to stay discovery while a
dispositive motion is pending. 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); 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.”);
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
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 of
proceeding with discovery; (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)).
case, the parties assert no potential prejudice to Plaintiff
from a stay, and, indeed, Plaintiff is unopposed to the stay
because “a stay will benefit Plaintiff by preventing
her from having to engage in disputes regarding discovery
related to the putative claims.” Motion [#58]
at 4. The Court therefore finds that the first String
Cheese Incident factor weighs in favor of staying
regard to the second factor, the Court finds that Defendant
has demonstrated that proceeding with the discovery process
presents an undue burden. Given how near the parties are to
the close of discovery, Defendant, absent a stay, “will
be faced with the dilemma of either addressing the putative
claims in depositions before the current cut-off, thereby
sacrificing time that could be spent on the other five
claims, or ignoring these proposed claims and being forced to
reopen depositions at a significant strategic disadvantage
should Plaintiff's” request for amendment be
granted. Motion [#58] at 5. The Court therefore
finds that the second String Cheese Incident factor
weighs in favor of staying discovery.
regard to the third factor, it is certainly more convenient
for the Court to stay discovery until the scope of discovery,
given the pending discovery deadline and discovery disputes
likely to arise on claims that are solely putative at this
time. See Chavous, 201 F.R.D. at 5. The Court there
finds that the third String Cheese Incident factor
weighs in favor of staying discovery.
regard to the fourth factor, Plaintiff's putative claims
make allegations implicating non-parties including
Defendant's employees and business partners. A stay of
discovery would protect these third-parties from discovery
requests via subpoenas and depositions until a ruling issues
on the amendment request. See Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v.
Banc of Am. Funding Corp., No. 14-cv-00418-PAB-MJW, 2014
WL 1466721, at *2 (D. Colo. Apr. 14, 2015) (noting risk that
“[n]on-parties could be unnecessarily burdened by
discovery requests via subpoenas and/or depositions”
and granting stay). Accordingly, the Court finds that the
fourth String Cheese Incident factor weighs in favor
of staying discovery.
regard 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 Court finds that the fifth String Cheese
Incident factor weighs in favor of staying discovery.
the relevant factors, the Court concludes that staying
discovery pending resolution of Plaintiff's Motion to
Amend Complaint [#51] is appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#58] is
GRANTED, and discovery is stayed pending
final resolution of the Motion to Amend Complaint [#51].
 “[#58]” 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
convention is used throughout this Order.
 The Court notes its appreciation for
the unusually thoughtful and thorough application of these
factors to the current circumstances of this case, despite
the fact that the request for a ...