CLARKE

v.

PRUMMELL, JR.

The Estate of Elroy Clarke sues the Charlotte County Sheriff and a handful of deputies for wrongful death and civil rights violations. (Doc. 18.) Two deputies, Alexander Magoon and Brad Stender, are under investigation by the State Attorney's Office for their actions in the incident involving Clarke. Defendants now move to stay discovery until the conclusion of that investigation. (Doc. 30.) Defendants also ask that the Court stay discovery until their motion to dismiss (Doc. 21), which raises qualified immunity, is decided. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff has no opposition to the criminal investigation stay but opposes a stay until the motion to dismiss is decided. (Id. at 8.)

“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); see also Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Ga., 263 F. 3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir. 2001) (“[W]e accord district courts broad discretion over the management of pre-trial activities, including discovery and scheduling."

Given that the parties agree, and considering the interplay between the criminal investigation and this civil suit, the Court finds that judicial economy favors a stay while the criminal investigation is pending. Once the criminal investigation concludes and the stay is lifted, an amended schedule will follow.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The motion to stay (Doc. 30) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART to the extent the case is stayed until the State Attorney's criminal investigation concludes. The motion is denied to the extent it seeks any greater or different relief. The Clerk is directed to add a stay flag to the docket.

2. The parties are directed to file a status report by December 1, 2025, and every ninety days thereafter. 3. The parties are also directed to file a notice once the criminal investigation concludes.

ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 29, 2025.

Kyle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge

3