KING

v.

LEE COUNTY

The parties move to stay all discovery until the pending motions to dismiss are resolved. (Doc. 68.) Alternatively, they seek “an extension of all deadlines, to include the deadlines for disclosure of the expert witnesses, by 120 days." (Id. at 5.)

Staying discovery pending a motion to dismiss is the exception, not the rule. This is because suspending discovery indefinitely “tend[s] to delay resolution of cases.” Fetchick v. Eslinger, No. 6:15-CV-96- ORL-28TBS, 2016

WL 8929252, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 11, 2016); see also Middle District of Florida, Civil Discovery Handbook, E. Timeliness and Sanctions. In assessing whether to stay discovery until a motion is decided, 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.” Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997).

The Court declines to stay discovery here. Although Defendants have raised several defenses that could limit this case, their motions will not entirely resolve it. And in any event, the procedural problems created by staying this case indefinitely outweighs the benefits. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (explaining that district courts have broad discretion to stay proceedings “as an incident to its power to control [their] own docket”). The Court will, however, grant the parties' alternative relief and extend the case management deadlines so the motions to dismiss can be decided before encroaching on the discovery period. A new case management order will follow.

ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on April 16, 2025.

Kyle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge