UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-23392-BLOOM/Louis

BRYON JACKSON and MARIO MENA, JR.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV SA/NV, LLC

and MIAMI BEER VENTURES, LLC,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Stay 

Discovery. ECF No. [53] (“Motion”). Defendants seek to stay discovery pending the Court’s 

resolution of Defendant’s anticipated motion to dismiss in response to Plaintiffs’ forthcoming 

second amended complaint. The Court has reviewed the Motion, the record in this case, the 

applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is 

denied.

A district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 

control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Motions to stay discovery 

“are not favored because when discovery is delayed or prolonged it can create case management 

problems which impede the Court’s responsibility to expedite discovery and cause unnecessary 

litigation expenses and problems.” Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997).

“[D]iscovery stay motions are generally denied except where a specific showing of prejudice or 

burdensomeness is made.” Montoya v. PNC Bank, N.A., No. 14-20474-CIV, 2014 WL 2807617, 

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2021 Page 1 of 4
Case No. 20-cv-23392-BLOOM/Louis

2

at *2 (S.D. Fla. June 20, 2014). The party moving for a stay of discovery has “the burden of 

showing good cause and reasonableness.” Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652.

“While it is not necessary for the Court to, in effect, decide the motion to dismiss to 

determine whether the motion to stay discovery should be granted, it is necessary for the Court to 

‘take a preliminary peek’ at the merits of the motion to dismiss to see if it appears to be clearly 

meritorious and truly case dispositive.” Id. at 652-53. “[A] motion to stay discovery . . . is rarely 

appropriate unless resolution of the motion will dispose of the entire case.” Bocciolone v. 

Solowsky, No. 08-20200-CIV, 2008 WL 2906719, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 24, 2008). Further, 

“discovery stay motions are generally denied except where a specific showing of prejudice or 

burdensomeness is made or where a statute dictates that a stay is appropriate or mandatory.” 

Montoya, 2014 WL 2807617, at *2. “Ultimately, the proponent of the stay bears the burden of 

demonstrating its necessity, appropriateness, and reasonableness.” Ray v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. 

12-61528-CIV, 2012 WL 5471793, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2012).

Here, the basis upon which Defendants move to stay discovery is their anticipated filing of

a motion to dismiss once Plaintiffs file their second amended complaint, which Defendants believe 

will dispose of this action in its entirety. Defendants’ argument relies upon Chudasama v. Mazda 

Motor Corp., where the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit stated that “[f]acial challenges 

to the legal sufficiency of a claim or defense, such as a motion to dismiss based on failure to state 

a claim for relief, should . . . be resolved before discovery begins.” 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir.

1997) (footnote omitted).

As an initial matter, however, the Court does not find that Defendants have demonstrated 

that discovery would be unduly burdensome, much less made a “specific showing” of prejudice or 

difficulty that is required to impose a stay on discovery. See Montoya, 2014 WL 2807617 at *2 

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2021 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 20-cv-23392-BLOOM/Louis

3

(conclusory statements regarding burdensome discovery could not support stay); Ray, 2012 WL 

5471793, at *3 (rejecting stay where defendant “ha[d] not identified in any specific and tangible 

way the unreasonable discovery burdens it will face absent a stay”).

Moreover, Defendants’ reliance on Chudasama is misplaced. Chudasama does not state a 

general rule that discovery should be stayed pending resolution of a motion to dismiss. Reilly v. 

Amy’s Kitchen, Inc., No. 13-21525-CIV, 2013 WL 3929709, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 31, 2013) 

(“[T]here is no general rule that discovery be stayed while a pending motion to dismiss is 

resolved.”); Gannon v. Flood, No. 08-60059-CIV, 2008 WL 793682, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 24, 

2008) (Chudasama “does not indicate a broad rule that discovery should be deferred whenever 

there is a pending motion to dismiss.”); Bocciolone, 2008 WL 2906719, at *1 (“[C]ourts have 

consistently rejected any per se requirement to stay discovery pending resolution of a dispositive 

motion.”). In fact, “[m]otions to stay discovery pending ruling on a dispositive motion are 

generally disfavored in this district.” Flecha v. Neighbors Moving Servs., Inc., 944 F. Supp. 2d 

1201, 1203 (S.D. Fla. 2013); Ray, 2012 WL 5471793, at *3 (explaining that the Chudasama court 

“confronted a very specific situation involving a threefold problem — unjustifiable delay by the 

district court in ruling on the motion to dismiss, an erroneous decision to compel discovery from 

the defendant prior to adjudicating the motion to dismiss, and an especially dubious fraud claim 

that was likely to be dismissed”).

Unlike the exceptional circumstances presented in Chudasama, where the district court did 

not rule on a motion to dismiss for over a year and a half, here, Defendants have yet to file a motion 

to dismiss. This fact alone essentially renders Chudasama inapposite; without a motion to dismiss 

before it, there is nothing for the Court to take a “preliminary peek” at in order to determine if this 

case presents the kind of “especially dubious” claim faced by the Chudasama court such that 

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2021 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 20-cv-23392-BLOOM/Louis

4

dismissal will avoid needless and extensive discovery. See Ray, 2012 WL 5471793, at *2. Indeed, 

the Court is unable to even assess the allegations that are at issue, as Plaintiffs have yet to file their 

amended pleading. Without the benefit of Plaintiffs’ pleading and full briefing on Defendants’ 

anticipated motion to dismiss, the instant Motion falls well short of placing the Court in a position 

to determine that a motion to dismiss by the Defendants would be both granted and case 

dispositive. See Bocciolone, 2008 WL 2906719, at *2 (“[A] motion to stay discovery . . . is rarely 

appropriate unless resolution of the motion will dispose of the entire case.”). The Court will 

address any motion to dismiss filed by Defendants in due course, but for now, discovery may 

proceed.

In sum, Defendants have not demonstrated good cause, the prejudice they will suffer, or 

anything exceptional about this case to warrant a stay of discovery. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion, ECF No. 

[53], is DENIED. The parties shall proceed with discovery, with all dates and deadlines remaining 

the same.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on February 10, 2021.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2021 Page 4 of 4