-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02107-PAB-KLM

JANE DOE #1,

JANE DOE #2, and

JANE DOE #3,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TRAVIS JON MASSE, in his individual capacity, and

MATT SCHMIDT, in his individual capacity,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Vacate

Scheduling Conference and Stay Discovery [Docket No. 61; Filed October 24, 2012]

(the “Motion”).

Although the stay of proceedings in a case is generally disfavored, the Court has

discretion to stay discovery while a dispositive motion is pending. See Wason Ranch Corp.

v. Hecla Mining Co., No. 07-cv-00267-EWN-MEH, 2007 WL 1655362, at *1 (D. Colo. June

6, 2007) (unreported decision) (“A stay of all discovery is generally disfavored in this

District.” (citation omitted)); String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 1:02-cv01934-LTB-PAC, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006) (unreported decision)

(finding that a thirty day stay of discovery was appropriate when a motion to dismiss for

lack of personal jurisdiction was pending); Nankivil v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 216 F.R.D.
-2-

689, 692 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (A stay may be appropriate if “resolution of a preliminary motion

may dispose of the entire action.”); 8 Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and

Procedure § 2040, at 521-22 (2d ed. 1994) (“[W]hen one issue may be determinative of a

case, the court has discretion to stay discovery on other issues until the critical issue has

been decided.”); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 804 (Fed. Cir.

1999) (“When a particular issue may be dispositive, the court may stay discovery

concerning other issues until the critical issue is resolved.”); Gilbert v. Ferry, 401 F.3d 411,

415-16 (6th Cir. 2005) (finding that ordering a stay of discovery is not an abuse of

discretion when a defendant has filed a motion to dismiss challenging the court’s actual

subject matter jurisdiction); Chavous v. D.C. Fin. Responsibility & Mgmt. Assistance Auth.,

201 F.R.D. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2005) (“A stay of discovery pending the determination of a

dispositive motion is an eminently logical means to prevent wasting the time and effort of

all concerned, and to make the most efficient use of judicial resources.” (internal quotation

omitted)).

Pending before the District Judge is Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Entry of

Judgment Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) [#62; Filed October 24, 2012]. Plaintiffs seek a Rule

54(b) judgment so they may pursue an appeal of the District Judge’s Order [#58] granting

in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [#44]. Because a ruling on the

Motion for Entry of Judgment [#62] will determine whether Plaintiffs may pursue an appeal,

the Court finds that vacating the Scheduling Conference and staying discovery pending a

ruling are warranted.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#61] is GRANTED. Accordingly,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all disclosure and discovery is STAYED pending
-3-

resolution of the Motion for Entry of Judgment Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) [#62].

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference set for October 31,

2012 at 10:30 a.m. is vacated. If necessary, the scheduling conference will be re-set upon

resolution of the Motion for Entry of Judgment.

DATED: October 25, 2012