Kirkbride v. The Kroger Co., 2:21-cv-00022

Plaintiff Judy Kirkbride filed a putative class action alleging Kroger inflated its "usual and customary" (U&C) prices reported to third-party payors and PBMs for generic drugs, causing insured customers to overpay.
Plaintiff amended to add four additional named plaintiffs and similar claims; alleged individual overcharges range from $1.97 to $287.10.
Kroger moved to dismiss the complaint and separately moved to stay discovery, attaching a declaration from its CFO explaining the burdens of compliance.
Kroger proffered that producing responsive records would require extracting ~380.4 million prescription claims since December 2018, coordinating with ~80 third parties for contract materials, and that only a few trained employees (currently occupied with COVID-19 vaccine administration and contract negotiations) could perform the work.
Plaintiff characterized the discovery as "narrow" and "easily" produced and offered to forgo the most burdensome requests, but sought at least transactional data; Kroger disputed those characterizations.
The magistrate judge found Kroger’s evidentiary showing of burden persuasive, concluded Plaintiff would not be unduly prejudiced by a short stay, and granted a stay of all discovery pending resolution of Kroger’s motions to dismiss and to strike class allegations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discovery should be stayed pending motions to dismiss and to strike class allegations	Dismiss motion is garden‑variety; discovery requests are focused; willing to defer most burdensome requests but wants transactional data	Producing discovery now is unduly burdensome and costly given volume, third‑party consents, and limited staff; little prejudice to Plaintiff	Stay granted pending resolution of the motions to dismiss and to strike the class allegations
Whether Kroger proved undue burden sufficient to justify a stay	Requests can be satisfied easily; contracts few; third‑party notices simple	CFO declaration shows multi‑month, resource‑intensive data pulls and complex third‑party coordination	Court credited Kroger’s uncontroverted evidence of burden and found it sufficient
Whether a garden‑variety Rule 12(b)(6) motion justifies a discovery stay	A Rule 12(b)(6) motion alone does not warrant a stay	Even if motion alone is insufficient, substantial present burden plus pending dispositive motions justify a stay	Court acknowledged the general rule but held that the demonstrated burden here warranted a temporary stay
Whether Plaintiff would be prejudiced by a temporary stay	Plaintiff would be harmed and needs prompt discovery	Alleged individual damages are small; Plaintiff can avoid future harm; short stay causes little prejudice	Court found no meaningful prejudice from a temporary stay

Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) (trial courts have inherent power to stay proceedings to manage their dockets)
In re Airline Pilots Ass'n v. Miller, 523 U.S. 866 (1998) (recognizes district courts' authority to manage docket, including stays)
Ohio Envtl. Council v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 565 F.2d 393 (6th Cir. 1977) (courts must be cautious before entering a stay because parties have right to timely adjudication)
Gettings v. Bldg. Laborers Local 310 Fringe Benefits Fund, 349 F.3d 300 (6th Cir. 2003) (limits on pretrial discovery appropriate where claims may be dismissed on legal grounds)
Muzquiz v. W.A. Foote Memorial Hosp., Inc., 70 F.3d 422 (6th Cir. 1995) (discovery may be curtailed when legal determinations could dispose of claims)
Grice Eng'g, Inc. v. JG Innovations, Inc., 691 F. Supp. 2d 915 (W.D. Wis. 2010) (identifies factors courts commonly consider in stay requests)
Hahn v. Star Bank, 190 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 1999) (district court has discretion to stay discovery pending resolution of preliminary, case‑dispositive questions)
Bangas v. Potter, [citation="145 F. App'x 139"] (6th Cir. 2005) (affirming discretion to stay discovery while preliminary issues are resolved)