RILEY
v.
MARCENO
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A motion to stay discovery pending a ruling on a motion to dismiss is rarely appropriate unless the motion will dispose of the entire case.
Plaintiff was arrested for narcotics crimes but later found to be innocent as drugs were planted. He is suing the arresting officers, including Sherif…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Stay Of Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff Mark Riley was arrested and charged with several narcotics crimes. It later came to light that the drugs were planted and he was innocent. Riley now sues those involved in his arrest, including Lee County Sheriff Carmine Marceno. (Doc. 30.) [fn 1]
Before the Court is Sheriff Marceno's Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling on Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 65.) According to Sheriff Marceno, discovery should be suspended until his “outstanding dispositive motion to dismiss has been resolved.” (Id. at 1.) This will, in his view, avoid wasting resources on “an unmeritorious claim.” (Id. at 5.)
Staying discovery pending a motion to dismiss is the exception, not the rule. This is because suspending discovery for an indefinite period "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). “A request to stay discovery ... is rarely appropriate unless resolution of the motion will dispose of the entire case." McCabe v. Foley, 233 F.R.D. 683, 685 (M.D. Fla. 2006); see also McCrimmon v. Centurion of Fla., LLC, No. 3:20-CV-36-J-39JRK, 2020 WL 6287681, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2020) (“Absent a clear indication a case will be dismissed in its entirety, a motion to stay should be denied.”).
Sheriff Marceno's motion to dismiss is not dispositive, as the Court just ruled. (See Doc. 73.) At least one claim is due to survive. And several more could proceed if the complaint is amended. Advancing into discovery is thus appropriate. See, e.g., Fetchick, 2016 WL 8929252, at *2. To the extent Sheriff Marceno is concerned about the breadth of discovery, those issues are better addressed through motion practice and not simply stopping discovery. Accordingly, Sheriff Marceno's motion (Doc. 65) is DENIED.
ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on July 1, 2024.
2
Kyle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge
Copies: All Parties of Record
3
[fn 1]: Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations have been omitted in this and later citations.