1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO.: 9:22-CV-81137-Cannon 

JOSHUA BAXTER, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

CROSS COUNTRY HEALTHCARE, INC. 

and TRAVEL STAFF, LLC, 

 Defendants. 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE AND DISCOVERY 

PENDING RESOLUTION OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION 

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b) and 26(c), Defendants Cross County 

Healthcare, Inc. and Travel Staff, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through their 

undersigned counsel respectfully request that this Court enter an order staying the Rule 26(f) 

conference and discovery pending resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Compel Individual 

Arbitration and Dismiss the Complaint or, in the Alternative, to Stay the Case (the “Motion to 

Compel Arbitration”) (ECF No. 21). Defendants state the following in support: 

1. On September 16, 2022, Defendants filed their Motion to Compel Arbitration. As 

set forth therein, Plaintiffs agreed to submit any and all disputes arising out of or in any way 

related to their employment to binding arbitration. That motion is currently pending. 

2. Unless this Court stays the Rule 26(f) conference and discovery, Defendants’ 

counsel must meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding discovery, develop a 

discovery plan, discuss the possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case, make or 

arrange for the initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), and discuss any issues about 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2022 Page 1 of 4
2

preserving discoverable information. The foregoing are steps that contemplate an eventual 

trial on the merits.

3. The foregoing obligations would be moot if this Court compels arbitration, 

and thus this Court should stay them as an exercise of its authority under Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure 6(b) and 26(c) and in the interests of judicial economy and saving costs and 

the expense of litigation. 

4. Accordingly, courts have routinely stayed discovery when a motion to compel 

arbitration has been filed in good faith. See Bufkin v. Scottrade, Inc., 812 F. App’x 838, 842 

(11th Cir.), cert. denied 141 S. Ct. 554 (2020) (“Given the potential for Bufkin’s claims against 

Scottrade to be resolved in arbitration, and the likelihood that Bufkin’s claims against the 

government parties could be fully resolved on the government parties’ motion to dismiss, the 

magistrate judge appropriately stayed discovery until these motions could be decided”); Ebix, 

Inc. v. DCM Grp., Inc., No. 17-cv-03653, 2019 WL 13209665 (N.D. Ga. May 31, 2019) (staying 

discovery and other pretrial deadlines pending ruling on motion to compel arbitration); Workman 

v. Hire Techs., Inc., No. CV 120-070, 2020 WL 5637083 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 21, 2020) (staying 

discovery and Rule 26(f) deadlines pending resolution of motion to compel arbitration); 

PhosAsset GmbH v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., No. CV-421-205, 2021 WL 9217154, at *1 

(S.D. Ga. Dec. 6, 2021) (“a ruling on Gulfstream’s Motion to Compel Arbitration might be 

dispositive of some important aspects of this case, since compelling arbitration would displace 

the case from the Court and into the arbitral forum ... . On balance, then, a stay of discovery is 

appropriate”) (citations omitted); Lacroix v. Lejeune Auto Wholesale, Inc., No. 20-21469-CIV, 

2020 WL 6059765 at *3 n.1 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 14, 2020) (staying discovery pending resolution on 

motion to dismiss, and noting that the distinction between motion to dismiss and motion to 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2022 Page 2 of 4
3

compel arbitration is “a distinction without a difference because the result remains the same.”) 

5. Indeed, Defendants should not be forced to sacrifice some of the benefits of 

arbitration by expending time and resources on complying with pre-trial and discovery 

obligations that may turn out to be unnecessary. See Blinco v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 366 

F.3d 1249, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2004) (explaining that “the arbitrability of a dispute [ ] 

gives the party moving to enforce an arbitration provision a right not to litigate the 

dispute in a court and bear the associated burdens”- which “includ[e] pretrial 

discovery”) (emphasis added). 

CONCLUSION 

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, this Court should stay the Rule 26(f) 

conference and discovery pending the resolution of the Defendants’ Motion to Compel 

Arbitration. 

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE 

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3)(A), I hereby certify that counsel for the movant has 

conferred with all parties and non-parties who may be affected by the relief sought in the motion 

in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion and has been unable to do so. 

Dated: October 19, 2022 

s/ Jurate Schwartz 

Jurate Schwartz, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 0712094 

TRIAL COUNSEL 

PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 

2255 Glades Road, Suite 421A 

Boca Raton, FL 33431 

Tel: (561) 241-7400 

Fax: (561) 241-7145 

Primary: jschwartz@proskauer.com 

Secondary: florida.labor@proskauer.com 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2022 Page 3 of 4
4

and 

Steven J. Pearlman, Esq. (pro hac vice) 

70 West Madison, Suite 3800 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

Tel: (312) 962-3545 

Fax: (312) 962-3551 

spearlman@proskauer.com 

P. Kramer Rice, Esq. (pro hac vice) 

Proskauer Rose LLP 

Eleven Times Square 

New York, NY 10036-8299 

Tel: (212) 969-3985 

Fax: (212) 969-2900 

krice@proskauer.com 

Attorneys for Defendants Cross Country 

Healthcare, Inc. and Travel Staff, LLC 

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2022 Page 4 of 4