UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-22307-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

MARIA FERNANDA SOTO LEIGUE, 

individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

EVERGLADES COLLEGE, INC., 

doing business as Keiser University,

Defendant. 

________________________________/ 

ORDER ON EXPEDITED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO STAY

PENDING OUTCOME OF MOTION TO DISMISS

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant’s Expedited Motion for Protective Order 

and to Stay Pending Outcome of Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [19] (the “Motion to Stay”). The 

Court has carefully reviewed the Motion to Stay, Plaintiff’s Response, ECF No. [21], the record 

in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow, the 

Motion to Stay is denied. 

Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of herself and two proposed classes against Defendant for 

violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (“FTSA”). See ECF No. [13] (“First Amended 

Complaint”). On August 29, 2022, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [18], arguing 

that the First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim because Defendant’s communications are 

not covered by the FTSA. In the Motion to Stay, Defendant contends that the Court should issue 

a protective order with respect to a subpoena issued by Plaintiff to third party Gragg Advertising, 

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 1 of 5
Case No. 22-cv-22307-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

2

LLC (“Gragg”), and stay discovery in this case until the Court has ruled upon the Motion to 

Dismiss. Plaintiff opposes the requests.

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, 

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).

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 2 of 5
Case No. 22-cv-22307-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

3

As an initial matter, the Court does not find that Defendant has demonstrated that discovery 

would be unduly burdensome, much less has Defendant made a “specific showing” of prejudice 

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

(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, Defendant’s reliance on Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corporation, 123 F.3d 

1353, 1368 (11th Cir. 1997), 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.”). Nor does the Court agree that the 

circumstances in this case are sufficiently extraordinary or similar to the facts in Chudasama such 

that a stay of discovery is warranted. See 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”). 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).

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 3 of 5
Case No. 22-cv-22307-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

4

In addition, the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the Motion to Dismiss. Pereira v. 

Regions Bank, 6:12-CV-1383-ORL-22, 2012 WL 5448191, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2012). In 

deciding whether to grant a stay, 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.” Berry v. Canady, No. 2:09-CV-765-FTM-29, 2011 WL 806230, at *1 (M.D. Fla. 

Mar. 2, 2011). Upon review, under the particular circumstances presented here, the Court does not 

agree that a stay of discovery is warranted. This is especially true since Defendant filed the Motion 

to stay on an expedited basis three days after filing its Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff has not yet 

had the opportunity to respond to the Motion to Dismiss.

Finally, to the extent that Defendant requests a protective order with respect to the 

subpoena issued to Gragg, Defendant fails to demonstrate that it has standing to request such relief.

“Generally, an individual does not have standing to challenge a subpoena served on another, unless 

that individual has a personal right or privilege with respect to the subject matter of the subpoena.” 

Barrington v. Mortgage It, Inc., No. 07-61304-CIV, 2007 WL 4370647, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 

2007). “[A] party lacks standing to challenge subpoenas served on another ‘on the grounds of 

oppression and undue burden placed upon the third parties where the non-parties have not objected 

on those grounds.” Armor Screen Corp. v. Storm Catcher, Inc., No. 07-81091-Civ, 2008 WL 

5049277, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 25, 2008) (quoting Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. SE Floating Docks, 

Inc., 231 F.R.D. 426, 429 (M.D. Fla. 2005)). In this case, Defendant has not asserted a personal 

right or privilege with respect to the information sought through the subpoena, and Gragg has not 

raised any objections to the subpoena.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to Stay, ECF No. [19],

is DENIED.

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 4 of 5
Case No. 22-cv-22307-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

5

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on September 7, 2022.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-22307-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 5 of 5