Cousins v. School Board of Orange County

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DIVISION

JENNIFER COUSINS, MATTHEW

COUSINS, P.C., M.C., S.C., N.C.,

WILL LARKINS, DAVID DINAN,

VIKRANTH REDDY GONGIDI,

K.R.D., R.R.D. and CENTERLINK,

INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No: 6:22-cv-1312-WWB-LHP

THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORANGE

COUNTY, FLORIDA, THE SCHOOL

BOARD OF INDIAN RIVER

COUNTY, FLORIDA, THE SCHOOL

BOARD OF DUVAL COUNTY,

FLORIDA, THE SCHOOL BOARD OF

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA,

THOMAS R. GRADY, BEN GIBSON,

MONESIA BROWN, ESTHER BYRD,

GRAZIE P. CHRISTIE, RYAN PETTY

and JOE YORK,

Defendants

ORDER

This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following

motions filed herein:

MOTION: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

(Doc. No. 126)

FILED: January 23, 2023

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.

MOTION: SCHOOL BOARD DEFENDANTS’ TIME-

SENSITIVE MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF

TIME TO RESPOND TO PRODUCTION REQUESTS

DURING PENDENCY OF STAY MOTION (Doc. No.

129)

FILED: February 1, 2023

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND.

On July 25, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint challenging Florida Statute §

1001.42(8)(c) (2022) (“HB 1557”), seeking declaratory judgment and preliminary

and permanent injunctive relief against Defendants. Doc. No. 1. Plaintiffs

thereafter filed an amended complaint, and a motion for preliminary injunction.

Doc. Nos. 45, 79. The Court denied the motion for preliminary injunction and

dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice, finding, among other things,

that the amended complaint constituted a shotgun pleading, failed to properly

allege certain claims, and failed to establish Article III standing. Doc. No. 81.

On November 3, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. Doc.

No. 82. Plaintiffs have also renewed their request for a preliminary injunction.

Doc. No. 103. Defendants, for their part, oppose the motion for preliminary

injunction, and they all have moved to dismiss the second amended complaint.

Doc. Nos. 109–13, 117, 120–22, 124.

Now, based on the pendency of the motions to dismiss and discovery

propounded on the School Board Defendants on January 11, 2023, Defendants

collectively seek a stay of all discovery pending resolution of those motions. Doc.

Nos. 126, 126-1. Plaintiffs oppose. Doc. No. 131. The motion has been referred

to the undersigned, and the matter is ripe for review.

The School Board Defendants have also filed a motion for extension of time

to respond to the January 11, 2023 discovery, asking that their response deadline be

extended until fourteen days after the Court’s ruling on the motion to stay

discovery. Doc. No. 129. Plaintiffs have filed their response in opposition. Doc.

No. 132. This motion has also been referred to the undersigned, and is ripe as well.

Upon consideration, the motion to stay discovery in toto (Doc. No. 126) will

be denied, and the School Board Defendants’ alternative request for an extension of

time to respond to the discovery (Doc. No. 129) will be granted.

II. MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY (Doc. No. 126).

Defendants collectively argue that there are “serious doubts” about the

Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, i.e., whether Plaintiffs have standing. Doc. No.

126, at 2–3. Defendants also argue that even outside of the standing issue, Plaintiffs

claims are legally insufficient. Id. at 3–4. So, according to Defendants, their

motions to dismiss are case dispositive, and a stay of discovery is warranted. Id.

at 2–4 (relying on, inter alia, Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir.

1997)). Defendants also rely on a similar case pending in the Northern District of

Florida, M.A., et al. v. Florida State Board of Education, et al., No. 4:22-cv-134, Doc. No.

89 (N.D. Fla. July 21, 2022), in which that court stayed discovery during the pleading

stage of the case. Id. at 5–6. Defendants further contend that Plaintiff will not

suffer prejudice by lack of a stay, given that Plaintiffs have foregone discovery for

“half of a year,” and that even if some portion of the second amended complaint

survived their motions to dismiss, “it is exceedingly unlikely that Plaintiffs will

ultimately need discovery for all of their claims,” thus independently justifying a

stay. Id. at 4, 5.

Plaintiffs oppose, arguing that Defendants have not carried their burden of

demonstrating that a stay of discovery is warranted, in particular disagreeing with

Defendants’ characterizations of the second amended complaint and contending

that they have adequately alleged standing. Doc. No. 131, at 5–6. Plaintiffs also

argue prejudice by imposition of a stay. Id. at 7. And Plaintiffs distinguish M.A.,

et al. v. Florida State Board of Education, et al., No. 4:22-cv-134, Doc. No. 89 (N.D. Fla.

July 21, 2022), arguing that stays of discovery are disfavored in the Middle District

of Florida, and unlike in that case, there are no issues regarding Eleventh

Amendment immunity here. Id.

The Court has broad discretion to stay discovery as part of its inherent

authority to control its docket. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). See also

Panola Land Buyers Ass’n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1560 (11th Cir. 1985) (“[A]

magistrate has broad discretion to stay discovery pending decision on a dispositive

motion.”). However, motions to stay discovery pending a ruling on a dispositive

motion are generally disfavored. See Middle District Discovery (2021) § (I)(E)(4)

(“Normally, the pendency of a motion to dismiss . . . will not justify a unilateral

motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the dipositive motion. Such

motions for stay are rarely granted. However, unusual circumstances may justify

a stay of discovery in a particular case upon a specific showing of prejudice or

undue burden.”). Indeed, “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. Fla. 1997) (quoting Simpson v. Specialty Retail

Concepts, Inc., 121 F.R.D. 261 (M.D.N.C. 1988)).

The moving party bears the burden of showing good cause to stay discovery.

Id.; Middle District Discovery (2021) § (I)(E)(4). In determining whether a stay of

discovery is warranted, the Court must balance the harm produced by delay against

the possibility that the dispositive motion will be granted and entirely eliminate the

need for discovery. Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652. In making this determination, “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.” Id.

at 652–53 (quotations omitted).

Upon consideration, Defendants have not shown good cause for a stay of

discovery. To begin, the Defendant’s reliance on Chudasama is misplaced.

“[N]othing in Chudasama states that discovery must be stayed pending a decision

on a motion to dismiss or that such a motion must be resolved before discovery can

begin.” Taser Int’l, Inc. v. Phazzer Elecs., Inc., 754 F. App’x 955, 960 (11th Cir. 2018).

“Instead, it stands for the much narrower proposition that courts should not delay

ruling on a likely meritorious motion to dismiss while undue discovery costs

mount.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Koock v. Sugar &

Felsenthal, LLP, No. 8:09-cv-609-T-17EAJ, 2009 WL 2579307, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 19,

2009)). Thus, the mere fact that there are pending motions to dismiss does not, in

and of itself, militate in favor of staying discovery. See also Middle District

Discovery (2021) § (I)(E)(4).

Moreover, without expressing any opinion as to final resolution of the

motions to dismiss, which remain pending before the presiding District Judge, the

undersigned is not convinced that the motions to dismiss may be clearly case

dispositive, or that the allegations of the second amended complaint are “especially

dubious” as the Court was faced with in Chudasama. See, e.g., Wiand v. ATC Brokers

Ltd., No. 8:21-cv-01317-MSS-AAS, 2022 WL 1239373, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2022)

(denying stay of discovery based on motions to dismiss which alleged lack of

standing and failure to state a claim, stating “the court cannot conclude at this time

that the motions to dismiss will be granted and, even if so, whether such dismissal

would be of the entire amended complaint, against each defendant, and with

prejudice.”); Torres v. Wendy’s Int’l, LLC, No. 6:16-cv-210-Orl-40DCI, 2016 WL

7104870, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 29, 2016) (denying motion to stay discovery in face of

motion to dismiss raising issues of standing and failure to state a claim, where the

court was not convinced that the motion to dismiss was clearly meritorious, the

defendant had not established undue burden, and a stay would hamper the

progress of the case); Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 653 (standing arguments in motion to

dismiss were “not so clearly well taken so as to justify a discovery stay”).

While a similar motion to stay discovery may have been granted in another

court in this Circuit, see M.A., et al. v. Florida State Board of Education, et al., No. 4:22-

cv-134, Doc. No. 89 (N.D. Fla. July 21, 2022), that does not necessarily mean the cases

are the same or that this Court will reach the same conclusions. Indeed, there are

issues of Eleventh Amendment immunity at issue in that case, which Defendants

do not argue here. See id., Doc. No. 89, at 2. And although a stay of discovery was

permitted there, notably, the plaintiffs have filed a second amended complaint in

that case, at least one defendant has answered, and motions to dismiss by the other

defendants remain unresolved to date. See id. Doc. Nos. 123, 130–34, 137. Thus,

that case does not yet support Defendants’ arguments here that the motions to

dismiss are clearly meritorious or case dispositive.

Finally, Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by a stay

of discovery because Plaintiffs have “foregone the need for speed in discovery for

half a year” is unpersuasive, given that discovery has only been open in this matter

since approximately September 6, 2022. See Doc. No. 63; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1).

And Defendants have not carried their burden of demonstrating “unusual

circumstances,” or specific burden or prejudice by lack of a stay. See Middle

District Discovery (2021) § (I)(E)(4). Indeed, Defendants’ lone statement that

“Plaintiffs’ dozens of requests for production are unduly burdensome,” without

more, does not suffice. See Doc. No. 126, at 4. See also Wiand, 2022 WL 1239373, at

*2 (denying stay of discovery where the defendants did not establish good cause to

justify the stay, and there was no finding that the defendants would be prejudiced

or burdened by engaging in discovery before the motions to dismiss were resolved).

In sum, the undersigned finds that the harm produced by delay in staying

discovery outweighs the possibility that the need for discovery will be entirely

eliminated. See Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652. Accordingly, the motion to stay

discovery in toto (Doc. No. 126) will be denied.

III. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. No. 129).

The School Board Defendants ask for an extension of time to respond to the

January 11, 2023 discovery served, until fourteen (14) days after resolution of the

motion to stay. Doc. No. 129. The current response deadline is February 10,

2023. See Doc. No. 126-1; Doc. No. 129, at 2. Given that the motion to stay is

resolved by this Order, the motion for extension of time (Doc. No. 129) will be

granted, and the Court will permit the School Board Defendants an additional

fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to respond to the outstanding

discovery.

III. CONCLUSION.

For the reasons stated herein, it is ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. No. 126) is DENIED.

2. School Board Defendants’ Time-Sensitive Motion for an Extension of

Time to Respond to Production Requests During Pendency of Stay Motion

(Doc. No. 129) is GRANTED, and the deadline for the School Board

Defendants to respond to the January 11, 2023 discovery requests is extended

up to and including February 21, 2023.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 7, 2023.

ay □□□□□

LESLIE AN PRICE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

Unrepresented Parties

-10-