The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:22-CV-00174-BO
Jasmine Darwin,
Plaintiff,
v. Order
Ruben De Los Santos, et al.,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the court on the Wake County Board of Education’s motion to
stay discovery. D.E. 39. The motion asks the court to stay its discovery obligations until the court
decides the Board’s pending motion to dismiss the amended complaint (D.E. 29). The Board
contends that the pending dispositive motion could resolve all claims Plaintiff, Jasmine Darwin,
asserts against it.1 So the time and expense attendant to discovery may be unnecessary. Darwin
opposes the Board’s motion to stay discovery. D.E. 41.
“A motion to stay discovery is tantamount to a request for a protective order prohibiting or
limiting discovery pursuant to Rule 26(c).” Kron Med. Corp. v. Groth, 119 F.R.D. 636, 637
(M.D.N.C. 1988). Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure gives the court, among other
things, the authority to issue a protective order staying discovery while it resolves a motion to
dismiss. Tilley v. United States, 270 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (M.D.N.C. 2003); Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(c)(1)(B) & (D). As with all protective orders, the moving party must show good cause for the
court to issue the order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).
1 The case, and discovery, would proceed against the other defendants who are not parties to the
motion to dismiss.
With no guidance from the Fourth Circuit, district courts have looked at several factors
when considering whether to grant a motion to stay discovery. Among them are whether the
motion, if granted, would dispose of the entire case, Simpson v. Specialty Retail Concepts, Inc.,
121 F.R.D. 261, 263 (M.D.N.C. 1988), the strength of the motion’s arguments, Tilley, 270 F. Supp.
2d at 734–35; and whether discovery is necessary for the non-moving party to respond to the
motion, id. at 734. But, at bottom, the court must “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.” Simpson, 121 F.R.D. at 263.
Here, balancing these factors supports granting the motion to stay. The Board’s motion, if
granted, could resolve the action against it entirely. Or, if the court grants the motion in part, it
may limit the scope of discovery. The dispositive motion makes plausible arguments, contending
that the amended complaint has failed to allege sufficient facts to state claims against the Board.
Darwin’s response offers similarly compelling arguments to support her position. On the other
side of the ledger are the costs of discovery, which could be substantial.
It is an open question whether the court will grant the motion to dismiss. If the motion is
granted, even in part, some or all of the time and resources the Board and Darwin may devote to
discovery may be unnecessary.
Darwin’s assertion that granting the motion to stay discovery will prejudice her claim
through delay or divided discovery obligations is unconvincing. Given the nature of the claims,
delaying discovery will not prejudice either side’s ability to pursue its claims or defenses should
the court deny the motion to dismiss.
After balancing the relevant factors, the court finds that the Board has shown good cause
to stay discovery. So the court grants the request to stay discovery and orders that, unless they
agree otherwise, the Board and Darwin may not conduct discovery until the court resolves the
motion to dismiss.’ If court the denies the motion to dismiss, the parties must confer and submit
an updated Rule 26(f) report within 14 days from the entry of the order on the motion.
Dated: September 22, 2022 Leo
Robert T. Numbers, II
United States Magistrate Judge
? Darwin and the non-moving defendants may proceed with discovery.