Holsapple v. Strong Industries, Inc., 2:12-cv-00355

Plaintiff Jennifer Holsapple, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert Jans, filed a wrongful death products liability action in Lee County, Florida on June 11, 2012, which was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division (Case No. 2:12-cv-00355-UA-SPC).
Defendant Strong Industries, Inc. moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on July 17, 2012, and after an amended complaint, again on August 13, 2012.
Defendant filed a Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. #19) on August 13, 2012 while the Rule to Dismiss (pending) was decided.
Plaintiff opposed the stay (Doc. #22), arguing discovery is necessary and that a key witness suffers from terminal cancer.
The Court balanced the potential harm of delaying discovery against the likelihood that the pending motion would eliminate the need for discovery, and denied the Motion to Stay Discovery on September 10, 2012.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discovery should be stayed pending disposition of the motion to dismiss.	Holsapple contends good cause for a stay is lacking and discovery should proceed, especially given a terminally ill witness.	Strong argues stay is appropriate to avoid unnecessary discovery costs if the motion to dismiss is granted.	Stay denied.

Patterson v. United States Postal Serv., 901 F.2d 927 (11th Cir. 1990) (recognizes stay only where appropriate; not all discovery should be delayed)
Chadsuma v. Mazda Corporation, 123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1997) (facial challenges to dismissal should be resolved before discovery; not a blanket stay)
Wilderness Soc. v. Griles, 824 F.2d 5 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (disfavored delay in discovery if it impedes defense)
Panola Land Buyers Ass’n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir. 1985) (delay in discovery weighed against motion outcome)