The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
CHESTON J. ROBERTS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:23-cv-00828-JRS-KMB
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
ERIC HOLCOMB, )
DIEGO MORALES, )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER DENYING PARTIES' JOINT MOTION TO STAY
Presently pending before the Court is the Parties' Joint Motion to Stay all case management
deadlines until after the Court rules on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. [Dkt. 48.] Because the
Motion to Dismiss does not raise a threshold challenge to all of Plaintiff's claims against all of the
Defendants, the Court finds that granting a stay would unnecessarily delay the proceedings and
that the Parties have not met their burden to show that one is warranted under these circumstances.
Accordingly, the Motion to Stay DENIED.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
"[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to
control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
counsel, and for litigants." Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). A court may
stay a matter through an exercise of its inherent authority to manage litigation or through its
authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). See, e.g., E.E.O.C. v. Fair Oaks Dairy
Farms, LLC, 2012 WL 3138108, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 1, 2012). "[The court should] balance
interests favoring a stay against interests frustrated by the action in light of the court's paramount
obligation to exercise jurisdiction timely in cases properly before it." U.S. ex rel. Robinson v.
Indiana Univ. Health Inc., 2015 WL 3961221 (S.D. Ind. June 30, 2015) (internal citation omitted).
"Courts disfavor stays of discovery 'because they bring resolution of the dispute to a
standstill.'" Red Barn Motors, Inc. v. Cox Enterprises, Inc., 2016 WL 1731328, at *3 (S.D. Ind.
May 2, 2016) (quoting New England Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund v. Abbott Labs, 2013 WL
690613, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2013)). District courts have "extremely broad discretion" in
weighing these factors in deciding whether a stay should issue. Robinson, 2015 WL 3961221, at
*1. "Filing a motion to dismiss does not automatically stay discovery," and as a general matter,
"a stay of discovery is warranted only when a party raises a potentially dispositive threshold issue
such [as] standing, jurisdiction, or qualified immunity." Red Barn Motors, 2016 WL 1731328, at
*2-3. Although such stays are sometimes granted, id., a party has no right to a stay, and the party
seeking a stay bears the burden of proving that the Court should exercise its discretion in staying
the case. Ind. State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC, 556 U.S. 960, 961 (2009).
II. ANALYSIS
The Parties jointly argue that there is good cause to stay discovery while the Motion to
Dismiss is pending because they contend that the ruling on the Motion to Dismiss "may make
further litigation unnecessary, narrow the issues in the case, or otherwise focus further litigation
efforts." [Dkt. 48 at ¶ 4.] If the Motion to Stay is denied, the Parties would like to "meet and
confer and file a proposed amended case management plan within 30 days of the Court's decision."
[Id. at ¶ 5.]
As a general matter, the Court does not routinely stay discovery simply because a defendant
has filed a motion to dismiss, and moving to dismiss a case does not automatically relieve the
Parties of their obligation to comply with case management deadlines. See, e.g., Gookins v. County
Materials Corp., 2019 WL 3282088 at *1 (S.D. Ind. July 18, 2019) (concluding that it is not
appropriate "for all discovery to grind to a halt" until after the motion to dismiss is ruled upon
because the defendants "have not met their burden of persuading the Court that the chance of their
motion to dismiss being granted in its entirety outweighs the interest in moving this matter
forward"). Instead, the Court typically will only stay discovery when the motion to dismiss raises
a threshold challenge such as standing, jurisdiction, or immunity, as to all claims. See, e.g.,
DeBoard v. BH Urban Station, LLC, 2023 WL 1363346 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 30, 2023) (staying
discovery where defendants moved to dismiss all claims for lack of standing).
In this case, Defendants' pending Motion to Dismiss does raise threshold challenges to
some, but not all, of the Plaintiff's claims against certain Defendants in this action. [Dkts. 42; 43.]
For example, Defendants' motion does seek to dismiss the State of Indiana and all state law claims
against it under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. [Id. at 8-10.] But the Plaintiff's state and
federal claims all arise from similar factual allegations and, thus, will likely involve similar
discovery. [See generally dkt. 33 (Plaintiff's Amended Complaint).] Because discovery on the
federal and state claims is likely to overlap, the Defendants' sovereign immunity challenge to the
Plaintiff's state law claims alone does not persuade the Court that the benefit of granting a
discovery stay would outweigh the general interests in moving this case forward. Additionally,
the Defendants are all represented by the same counsel, so even if Defendants prevail on a
dismissal of the State on sovereign immunity grounds, allowing discovery to proceed at this time
is unlikely to materially reduce the cost of litigation given the overlapping nature of the
underpinnings of Plaintiff's state and federal claims.
Finally, the Court observes that the Parties' argument in the Joint Motion to Stay—i.e., that
the ruling on the Motion to Dismiss may "narrow the issues in the case, or otherwise focus further
litigation efforts," [dkt. 48 at { 4]—1s a conclusory argument that provides no insight on the burden
the Parties expect to endure if discovery proceeds while the Motion to Dismiss 1s pending. Given
these circumstances, the Court concludes that the Parties have not met their burden of proving that
the Court should exercise its discretion in staying the case and, thus, denies the Motion to Stay.
[Dkt. 48.]
I. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES the Parties’ Joint Motion to Stay
Discovery Deadlines. [Dkt. 48.] The Court notes that since the Parties filed that Motion, the
previously established deadlines for their initial disclosures and preliminary witness and exhibit
lists have passed. [Dkt. 40.] In light of the Court's denial of the joint stay request, it sua sponte
extends the deadlines for those items to December 13, 2023. The Court does not extend any other
case management deadlines at this time; however, it ORDERS the Parties to meet and confer and,
to the extent necessary, file a proposed amended case management plan for the Court's
consideration no later than December 13, 2023.
IT ISSO ORDERED.
Date: 11/22/2023 Koll MN □□□
Kellie M. Barr
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution:
Nicholas F. Baker
Nick Baker Law LLC
nick@nickbakerlaw.com
James A. Barta
Office of the Indiana Attorney General
james.barta@atg.in.gov
Katelyn E. Doering
Office of the Indiana Attorney General
katelyn.doering@atg.in.gov
Melinda Rebecca Holmes
Office of the Indiana Attorney General
melinda.holmes@atg.in.gov