Juravin v. Rada

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

OCALA DIVISION

DON KARL JURAVIN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 5:24-cv-618-PGB-PRL

JUDGE CARY F. RADA, JUDGE

DAN R MOSLEY, and LAKE

COUNTY,

Defendants.

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on a Motion for Protective Order and Motion to

Stay Discovery filed by Defendants Judge Cary F. Rada and Judge Dan R. Mosley

(collectively, the “Judicial Defendants”). (Doc. 47). The Judicial Defendants move for an

order staying discovery and protecting them from all discovery obligations pending a

resolution on their motion to dismiss (Doc. 20). (Doc. 47 at p. 4). Plaintiff opposes the motion,

arguing in a conclusory fashion that a stay of discovery would be prejudicial to him and that

discovery is necessary to determine whether the Judicial Defendants acted outside their

authority. (Doc. 51).1 Upon consideration, the Judicial Defendants’ Motion for Protective

Order and Motion to Stay Discovery is due to be granted.

1 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s filed response in opposition to the motion is untimely, as it

was filed after the May 26, 2025 response deadline that the Court provided to the Plaintiff on May

20, 2025 (Doc. 49). See M.D. Fla. Local Rule 3.01(c) (“If a party fails to timely respond, the motion

is subject to treatment as unopposed.”). However, in this instance and in the interest of judicial

efficiency, the Court will allow the pro se Plaintiff’s untimely response to stand and has considered it

herein. That said, Plaintiff is cautioned that he must abide by the applicable Local Rules, Court

Orders, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to do so in the future may result in the striking

of filings and/or imposition of sanctions.

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

As a general matter, courts maintain broad discretion in managing discovery matters,

including staying discovery. See Perez v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 297 F.3d 1255, 1263 (11th Cir.

2002) (citations omitted); 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.”) (citations omitted). In exercising this discretion, a court is permitted

to stay discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) if the movant shows “good

cause and reasonableness.” See Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997)

(citation omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (permitting courts for good cause to limit, prevent, or

stay discovery to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden,

or expense and to promote a case’s efficient resolution); In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litig., 820

F.2d 352, 356 (11th Cir. 1987) (“‘Good cause’ is a well[-]established legal phrase. Although

difficult to define in absolute terms, it generally signifies a sound basis or legitimate need to

take judicial action.”).

“In deciding whether to stay discovery pending resolution of a pending motion, the

Court inevitably 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.”

Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652. Therefore, in making this determination, the Court must “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.” See id. at 652-53 (internal quotations omitted).

Where a pending motion, such as a motion to dismiss, may dispose of the entire action,

granting a stay of discovery may be justified. See Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d

1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997) (“Facial challenges to the legal sufficiency of a claim . . . , such

as a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim for relief, should, however, be resolved

before discovery begins.”) (internal footnote omitted). Courts may issue an order staying

discovery and protecting a party from discovery obligations pending resolution of a motion

to dismiss that raises threshold questions of immunity. See, e.g., Allston v. Fla. Dep’t of Revenue,

No. 6:24-cv-1085-CEM-DCI, 2024 WL 4905428, at *1-2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 27, 2024) (granting

defendants’ motion for protective order and motion to stay discovery pending resolution of a

motion to dismiss that raised issues of immunity because, despite recommending pro se

plaintiff be given an opportunity to amend, such “issues raised in the motion to dismiss may

be truly case dispositive—especially as to certain defendants and claims”); Sheets v. Bell, No.

2:23-cv-35-JLB-KCD, 2023 WL 11724680, at *1-2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 17, 2023) (granting

defendant’s motion for protective order, staying discovery pending resolution of a motion to

dismiss that raised issues of immunity, including judicial immunity); Saito v. Collier Cnty. Mun.

Corp., No. 2:22-cv-740-JLB-KCD, 2023 WL 2305965, at *1-2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2023)

(granting a stay of discovery pending resolution of defendants’ motions to dismiss that raised

issues of immunity, including judicial immunity); Torres v. Zingale, No. 6:22-cv-1298-WWB-

LHP, 2023 WL 7000943, at *1-2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2023) (granting a stay of discovery

pending resolution of defendants’ motion to dismiss that sought to dismiss the complaint on

immunity grounds and as a shotgun pleading); McClamma v. Remon, No. 8:12-cv-2557-T-

33MAP, 2013 WL 1502190, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 12, 2013) (granting stay of discovery

pending resolution of a motion to dismiss that raised questions of immunity).

II. DISCUSSION

In this instance, the Court has done more than take a “preliminary peek” at the Judicial

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The undersigned has issued a report and recommendation,

recommending that the motion to dismiss (Doc. 20) be granted in part, to the extent that

Plaintiff’s claims in the complaint asserted against the Judicial Defendants are barred by

judicial immunity, and that Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed without prejudice.

(Doc. 50). Although the undersigned recommended that Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se,

be given an opportunity to amend, the undersigned noted that the issues raised in the Judicial

Defendants’ motion to dismiss (including the issue of judicial immunity) may be truly case

dispositive. (See id. at pp. 10-16, 20-27, 29).

In weighing the harm produced by delaying discovery against the possibility that the

motion to dismiss will be granted, the balance weighs in favor of staying discovery. As the

Judicial Defendants point out, allowing discovery to proceed in this action would subject

officials, such as state judges, “to traditional discovery concerning acts for which they are

likely immune would undercut the protection immunity was meant to afford.” (Doc. 47 at

pp. 3-4) (quoting Redford v. Gwinnett Cnty. Jud. Cir., 350 F. App’x 341, 346 (11th Cir. 2009));

see Sheets, 2023 WL 11724680, at *1 (“[T]he Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly recognized that

claims of immunity often call for protection from discovery on the grounds that subjecting

officials to traditional discovery concerning acts for which they are likely immune would

undercut the protection immunity was meant to afford.”) (collecting cases). Other than

conclusory references to prejudice, Plaintiff fails to sufficiently explain any specific harm or

prejudice that will occur should a brief stay of discovery be granted while the Court resolves

the motion to dismiss. Like other courts in this district have reasoned, Plaintiff’s arguments

regarding the need to conduct discovery pending resolution on the motion to dismiss that

raises issues of immunity “do[ | not sway the Court to break step with the Eleventh Circuit.”

See Sheets, 2023 WL 11724680, at *2; Saito, 2023 WL 2305965, at *2.

Il. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

(1) Defendants Judge Rada and Judge Mosley’s Motion for Protective Order and

Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 47) is GRANTED.

(2) All discovery in this matter is stayed pending the Court’s resolution on the motion

to dismiss (Doc. 20; see Doc. 50).

DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on May 30, 2025.

Does

PHILIP R. LAMMENS

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

Unrepresented Party