Fernandez v. Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RAMONA FERNANDEZ, ET AL CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 24-289-BAJ-SDJ

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF

CHILDREN AND FAMILY

SERVICES, ET AL

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (R. Doc. 42). The

Motion is opposed (R. Doc. 44), and Defendants have filed a Reply (R. Doc. 65).

I. Arguments of the Parties

A. Defendants’ Motion to Stay

Defendants seek to stay all discovery because their Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 38), if

granted, would entirely dispose of the case, rendering discovery unnecessary. (R. Doc. 42 at 2).

Defendants allege that the waste of resources would be significant “given the complexity and depth

of this putative class action involving potentially thousands of plaintiffs”. (R. Doc. 42 at 2).

Finally, Defendants assert that their claims of sovereign immunity entitle them to immunity from

discovery. (R. Doc. 42 at 2).

B. Plaintiffs’ Opposition

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have not met their burden to show good cause for a

protective order staying discovery. (R. Doc. 44 at 1). Citing the good cause standard for a

protective order per Federal Rule 26(c)(1), Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have not met their

burden to show good cause. (R. Doc. 44 at 3). First, Plaintiffs note that Defendants have made no

particular, specific demonstration that discovery would cause undue burden, instead merely

concluding that discovery would “doubtless” be “exceptionally burdensome”. (R. Doc. 44 at 3).

Next, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are not likely to prevail on abstention grounds in their

Motion to Dismiss because Rooker-Feldman abstention does not apply to review of a state agency

action and because Younger abstention will neither apply nor, if applied, dispose of the case. (R.

Doc. 44 at 4-6). Finally, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are unlikely to prevail on their argument

of sovereign immunity, as the Ex Parte Young exception applies; and even if sovereign immunity

applies to Governor Landry, it will not dispose of the case. (R. Doc. 44 at 7).

C. Defendants’ Reply

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have “overstat[ed] Defendants’ burden in seeking a

common-sense stay”. (R. Doc. 65 at 1). Defendants allege that they are not seeking a protective

order, but rather “a stay of all discovery during the pendency of an already-filed motion to

dismiss”. (R. Doc. 65 at 1-2). Because Defendants do not believe they are seeking a protective

order, they do not believe they must meet the “heavier burden facing the typical protective-order

movant”. (R. Doc. 65 at 2). Defendants assert that “[t]he argument before this Court is not how

Defendants’ motion to dismiss will fare[], but whether this Court should stay discovery while the

parties wait and see.” (R. Doc. 65 at 3). Finally, Defendants argue that the burden of discovery in

this case is self-explanatory (R. Doc. 65 at 4).

II. Legal Standard

No federal or local rule, statute, or binding case law automatically stays discovery pending

a ruling on a dispositive motion, absent extraordinary circumstances.1 Indeed, “if the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure contemplated that pending motions to dismiss would stay discovery, they would

1 See, e.g. Great Lakes Ins., S.E. v. Gray Grp. Invs., LLC, 2021 WL 7708048, at *10 (E.D. La. May 21, 2021) (citing

Escareno ex rel. A.E. v. Lundbeck, LLC, 2014 WL 1976867, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 15, 2014) (“Filing a Rule 12(b)(6)

motion to dismiss does not automatically stay discovery or require postponing a Rule 26(f) conference until the motion

is resolved.”)).

contain a provision to that effect”.2 A stay of discovery in light of a pending dispositive motion is

the exception rather than the rule.3 It is an “extraordinary step” and should not be granted merely

because a defendant believes it will prevail on a dispositive motion.4 While some courts may take

the strength of a dispositive motion into account when determining whether to stay discovery, this

is only a cursory review of the dispositive motion to assess whether the arguments are so

substantial to render discovery futile.5

Contrary to Defendants’ strong assertion, a request to stay discovery must be considered a

motion for protective order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).6 And so, courts should exercise

discretion to stay discovery only for good cause, to protect from annoyance, embarrassment,

oppression, or undue burden or expense.7 The burden is on the party seeking a stay to show its

necessity with a “particular and specific demonstration of fact as distinguished from stereotyped

and conclusory statements”.8 This demonstration must necessarily allege facts beyond the ordinary

costs of litigation.9 Courts in the Fifth Circuit routinely decline to stay discovery pending the

resolution of another motion, because the mere existence of a dispositive motion does not

constitute good cause.10

2 X Corp. v. Media Matters for Am., 2024 WL 1895255, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2024).

3 Notariano v. Tangipahoa Par. Sch. Bd., 2018 WL 3844882, at *2 (E.D. La. Aug. 13, 2018) (citing Glazer's Wholesale

Drug Co. v. Klein Foods, Inc., 2008 WL 2930482, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 23, 2008)).

4 Valenzuela v. Crest-Mex Corp., 2017 WL 2778104, at *5 (N.D. Tex. June 26, 2017); Griffin v. Am. Zurich Ins. Co.,

2015 WL 11019132, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 18, 2015) (citing Glazer’s, 2008 WL 2930482).

5 X Corp., 2024 WL 1895255, at *2.

6 Great Lakes, 2021 WL 7708048, at *10 (citing Landry v. Air Line Pilots Assoc. Int'l ALF-CIO, 901 F.2d 404, 435

(5th Cir. 1990)).

7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1); X Corp., 2024 WL 1895255, at *1 (quoting Von Drake v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 2004 WL

1144142, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 20, 2004)).

8 In re Terra Int'l, Inc., 134 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Garrett, 571 F.2d 1323, 1326 n.3

(5th Cir. 1978)).

9 To argue otherwise would be to say that all litigation costs constitute an “undue burden” under the Federal Rules.

10 See, e.g., Great Lakes, 2021 WL 7708048 at *10 (“[Defendant’s] pending dispositive motion does not render

discovery premature.”); Valenzuela, 2017 WL 2778104, at *5 (“[A]lthough the motion to compel arbitration might, if

granted, result in the complete dismissal of this case as pending in this Court, that possibility alone does not,

considering all the other factors discussed above, justify taking the extraordinary step of staying discovery.”); Ashford

Inc. v. United Here., 2015 WL 11121019, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 12, 2015) (Lynn, J.) (denying discovery stay because

Nevertheless, while discretionary stays of discovery are “very rare” in the context of a Rule

12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, that analysis is different when a party asserts a plausible defense of

sovereign immunity. Moreno v. United States, 2024 WL 3763755, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 12,

2024) (citing cases). “A stay of discovery may be merited where the defendant raises the defense

of sovereign immunity, which is a threshold issue that could be dispositive of the action.” Belfor

USA Grp., Inc. v. Democracy Prep Louisiana Charter Sch., 2020 WL 6329470, at *4 (M.D. La.

Oct. 28, 2020) (citing Davis v. United States Army Rsrv. Through 321st Sustainment Brigade, 2019

WL 5777387, at *2 (M.D. La. Nov. 5, 2019)). This Court, relying on Fifth Circuit precedent,

routinely stays discovery pending resolution of motions to dismiss raising threshold issues such as

qualified immunity. Baxter v. Louisiana, 2022 WL 1509118, at *1 (M.D. La. May 12, 2022) (citing

cases).

III. Discussion

Here, Defendants provide only conclusory statements that their Motion to Dismiss would

dispose of the case and that discovery would be significant. Despite Plaintiffs’ correct assertion of

the good cause standard, Defendants in their Reply do not engage with the standard, and clearly

have not met the movant’s burden to show good cause for a stay of discovery under normal

circumstances. However, because sovereign immunity is immunity from suit and its associated

costs, and because this Court regularly stays discovery pending the resolution of such threshold

issues, the Court finds it appropriate to stay discovery until a ruling has been made on the issue of

sovereign immunity.

“the Court has a general interest in efficiently managing its docket, an interest that is rarely served by staying discovery

pending the outcome of an arguably meritorious dispositive motion”); Glazer's, 2008 WL 2930482, at *1 (“The court

declines to stay discovery merely because defendant believes it will prevail on its motion to dismiss.”); United States.

ex rel. Gonzalez v. Fresenius Med. Care N. Am., 571 F. Supp. 2d 766, 768 (W.D. Tex. 2008) (declining to stay

discovery for pending Rule 12(b)(6) motion where movants did not show that discovery would be oppressive, unduly

burdensome, or expensive).

And so,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (R. Doc. 42) is GRANTED,

and all discovery is STAYED until the issue of sovereign immunity has been resolved. Upon

resolution of the Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 38), the parties shall, if appropriate, file a motion for

scheduling conference to set new discovery deadlines.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on March 4, 2025.

S

SCOTT D. JOHNSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE