United States District Court 

for the 

Southern District of Florida 

Uniq Branch Office Mexico, S.A. de 

C.V., and Jacobo Helfon Daniel, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Steel Media Group, LLC, and 

others, Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 22-23876-Civ-Scola 

Order Denying Motion to Stay Discovery 

 This matter is before the Court on the Defendant Gisela Coloma’s motion 

to stay discovery (ECF No. 90) pending the Court’s resolution of Defendants’ 

Steel Media Group, LLC, Luis Fernando Rodriguez Mejia, and Gisela Coloma’s 

motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint (ECF No. 78). For the 

reasons explained below, this motion is denied. 

 This action concerns an alleged scheme by Defendants whereby they 

would enter into agreements to sell World Cup ticket packages to clients of the 

Plaintiffs, ultimately failing to deliver the tickets but retaining the clients’ 

money. (See generally ECF No. 78.) The Plaintiffs have brought eleven Florida 

common law counts against the Defendants and filed their third amended 

complaint on June 16, 2023. (Id.) Two of the claims are against Defendant 

Gisela Coloma, who seeks a stay of discovery while the motion to dismiss filed 

by her and two other Defendants is pending. (ECF No. 90.) The Plaintiffs filed a 

response to the motion. (ECF No. 93.) 

District courts are given “broad discretion over the management of pretrial activities, including discovery and scheduling.” Johnson v. Bd. of Regents 

of Univ. of Ga., 263 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir. 2001). As a general rule, 

motions to dismiss should be resolved as soon as practicable to obviate 

avoidable discovery costs, especially where a dubious claim appears destined 

for dismissal. See Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1368 

(11th Cir. 1997) (“If the district court dismisses a nonmeritorious claim before 

discovery has begun, unnecessary costs to the litigants and to the court system 

can be avoided.”). A stay of discovery pending the determination of a motion to 

dismiss, however, is the exception rather than the rule. See McCabe v. Foley, 

233 F.R.D. 683, 685 (M.D. Fla. 2006) (Morris, J.) (“A request to stay discovery 

pending a resolution of a motion is rarely appropriate unless resolution of the 

motion will dispose of the entire case.”). 

Case 1:22-cv-23876-RNS Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2023 Page 1 of 3
To evaluate whether there is a strong likelihood “the [dismissal] motion 

will be granted and entirely eliminate the need for such discovery,” the district 

court must take a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the motion. Feldman v. 

Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652-53 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (Corrigan, J.) (citations 

omitted). The court must also weigh “the harm produced by a delay in 

discovery” against “the likely costs and burdens of proceeding with discovery.”

See id. at 652 (citations omitted). Both concerns are important—while a 

defendant should not be forced to expend substantial resources answering 

discovery when the plaintiff’s claims clearly lack merit, the delay and 

prolongation of discovery can also create case management and scheduling 

problems and unfairly hold up the prosecution of the case. See Chudasama, 

123 F.3d at 1368-69; Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652-53; see also Kron Med. Corp. 

v. Groth, 119 F.R.D. 636, 638 (M.D.N.C. 1988) (Eliason, J.).

Based on the Court’s review of the motion to stay and an initial review of 

the motion to dismiss and the related briefing, the Court will not grant a stay of 

discovery. Dismissal of the case with prejudice is not a foregone conclusion. 

Defendant Coloma argues that the Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed due to 

lack of standing, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, 

and forum non conveniens. (ECF No. 90 at 3.) These arguments do no more 

than rehash the Defendants’ position, made in their motion to dismiss, that 

they should prevail. Coloma has also failed to provide any reason that engaging 

in discovery during the pendency of the motion to dismiss is particularly 

“burdensome” for her. (Id. at 5.)

While the Court must take a “preliminary peek” at the motion and the 

Complaint to see whether the Plaintiffs’ claims are meritless, Feldman, 176 

F.R.D. at 652-53, the Court is not required to move the Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss to the front of the line, ahead of other cases with pending motions, and 

fully adjudicate it on the spot. Such a requirement would be unfair to other 

parties, as well as to the Court. Having preliminarily examined the motion to 

dismiss, the Court cannot say that this case will certainly be dismissed. The 

Defendants advance several arguments for dismissal, but the claims are 

numerous in this case and the Plaintiffs offer at least facially compelling

arguments in response such that it appears unlikely that the Court will 

dismiss the claims against Coloma in full.

Although this case may end in dismissal, that outcome is not apparent 

enough after a “preliminary peek” to warrant an across-the-board stay of 

discovery right now—an outcome that is considered the exception, rather than 

the rule.

Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant Coloma’s motion to stay 

discovery. (ECF No. 90.)

Case 1:22-cv-23876-RNS Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2023 Page 2 of 3
Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on September 19, 2023.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:22-cv-23876-RNS Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2023 Page 3 of 3