GAFFNEY

v.

RIVES

This cause comes before the Court upon the Motion to Stay Discovery filed by Defendants Miguel A. Olivella, Jr., and Marie T. Rives (Doc. 38), and the Motion to Stay Discovery filed by Defendants Joshua E. Doyle and Lindsey M. Guinand (Doc. 39). Upon careful consideration, the Court will grant both motions.

DISCUSSION

Teresa M. Gaffney brings this action against one group of Defendants who are employees of the Florida Bar (“The Bar Defendants”), and a second group of Defendants who are attorneys in the Florida Attorney General’s office. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 5– 12. Gaffney brings a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Civil Rights Conspiracy in Count I, alleging that Defendants conspired to violate her First Amendment Right to free speech, and a second claim for Civil Rights Conspiracy in Count II, citing to the Equal Protection Clause. Id. ¶ 79–96. The claims are based on a Florida Bar Complaint that was filed against Gaffney. Id. Defendant Rives has filed a Motion to Dismiss in this matter (Doc. 20), as have the Bar Defendants (Doc. 21) and Defendant Olivella (Doc. 26).1 Defendants argue that the immunity doctrines asserted in their Motions to Dismiss support a stay of discovery, because an order dismissing the case on immunity grounds would dispose of the action entirely. See Doc. 20 at 16–22; Doc. 21 at 5–13; Doc. 26 at 13–15. Rives argues that she is entitled to absolute immunity on both counts, because her only alleged role in the conspiracy was discussing the Bar Complaint against Gaffney with Florida Bar staff attorneys. Doc. 20 at 16–17. The Bar Defendants argue that they are entitled to absolute immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, because the Bar, as an arm of the Florida Supreme Court, is immune from Plaintiff’s claims. Doc. 21 at 5.

Finally, Olivella argues that he is entitled to absolute immunity under the litigation privilege, because the only allegations made against him are that he filed a motion for sanctions against Gaffney and later withdrew it. Doc. 26 at 13–15. Courts have broad discretion in managing their own dockets. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). This discretion includes the ability to stay discovery if a movant demonstrates good cause and reasonableness. James v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 8:15-CV-2424-SDM-JSS, 2016 WL 520031, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 9, 2016) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P 26(c)(1)). The pendency of a motion to dismiss normally will not

I.E.4. Thus, “a stay of discovery pending the resolution of a motion to dismiss is the exception, rather than the rule.” Jolly v. Hoegh Autoliners Shipping AS, No. 3:20-cv-1150- MMH-PDB, 2021 WL 1822758, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2021). In determining whether to stay discovery pending the resolution of a motion,

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). In balancing these considerations, the Court may take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the

Chak tries Ochudtandx: A gl well Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties