Clifton v. Jeff Davis County, Georgia, 2:16-cv-00108

Plaintiff Tyler Brent Clifton filed a § 1983 civil rights complaint against Jeff Davis County, county officials, the county attorney, the county sheriff’s department, and the sheriff.
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and an Answer on August 19, 2016, and concurrently moved to stay discovery until the Motion to Dismiss is resolved.
The court evaluated whether discovery should be stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss to avoid unnecessary cost and abusive discovery.
The court relied on Eleventh Circuit authority recognizing that legally unsupported claims should be dismissed before discovery to prevent undue expense (citing Chudasama).
Finding no prejudice from a stay and potential savings of time and resources, the magistrate judge granted the stay of all proceedings, including discovery, pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss; the plaintiff still must file a response to the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discovery should be stayed pending ruling on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss	Clifton implicitly opposes delay (must still respond), but no specific prejudice alleged in order record	Stay is proper to avoid unnecessary expense and abusive discovery where a dispositive motion could eliminate claims before discovery begins	Court granted stay of all proceedings, including discovery, until ruling on the Motion to Dismiss; ordered discovery schedule after ruling for any surviving claims

Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1997) (district courts should eliminate legally unsupported claims before discovery to avoid unnecessary costs)
Moore v. Potter, [citation="141 F. App'x 803"] (11th Cir. 2005) (district courts need not proceed to discovery before ruling on a dispositive motion)