IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11–cv–02527–DME–KMT

COLORADO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v. 

BROCK USA LLC, 

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the “Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Stay

Current Case Deadlines Pending Determination of Coverage Issues” (Doc. No. 55, filed March

30, 2012). 

On September 27, 2011, Colorado Casualty filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief

against Brock requesting that the Court determine that Colorado Casualty has no duty to either

defend or indemnify Brock in connection with an underlying action in British Columbia, Canada

(the “Underlying Action.”). On November 9, 2011, Brock responded to Colorado Casualty’s

Complaint and filed Counterclaims against Colorado Casualty seeking a declaratory judgment

that Colorado Casualty owes defense and indemnity obligations in connection with the

Underlying Action. In addition, Brock also asserted claims for breach of contract and bad faith

Case 1:11-cv-02527-DME-KMT Document 59 Filed 04/03/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
2

breach of insurance contract against Colorado Casualty. The parties in the Underlying Action

filed a stipulation to dismiss that case, and the Court entered a Consent Dismissal Order on

February 15, 2012. Brock filed an expanded Motion for Summary Judgment, which requests a

ruling on the coverage issues presented by this case. The Motion for Summary Judgment is not

fully briefed, and Colorado Casualty states it will file both its Response to Brock’s Motion for

Summary Judgment and its Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment contemporaneously. The

parties request an order staying all case deadlines in the scheduling order pending a

determination of Brock’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Colorado Casualty’s Cross-Motion

for Summary Judgment1 on the issue of insurance coverage obligations. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for a stay of proceedings.

See String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., 02-CV-01934-LTB-PA, 2006 WL

894955, at *2 (D. Colo. March 30, 2006). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 does, however,

provide that

[a] party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order

in the court where the action is pending . . . The court may, for good cause, issue an order

to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden

or expense . . . .

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a).

A motion to stay discovery is an appropriate exercise of this court’s discretion. Landis v.

N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936). “The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the

power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy

of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the

Case 1:11-cv-02527-DME-KMT Document 59 Filed 04/03/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
3

exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Id.

(citing Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 760, 763 (1931)). Indeed, “a court may

decide that in a particular case it would be wise to stay discovery on the merits until [certain

challenges] have been resolved.” 8A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L.

Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2040, 198 (3d ed. 2010); see also Vivid Techs., Inc.

v. Am. Sci. & Eng’r, 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.”).

When considering a stay of discovery, the court may consider and weigh: (1) the

plaintiff’s interests in proceeding expeditiously with the civil action and the potential prejudice

to plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on the defendants; (3) the convenience to the court; (4) the

interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest. See FDIC v.

Renda, No. 85-2216-O, 1987 WL 348635, at *2 (D. Kan. Aug. 6, 1987) (unpublished) (citing

cases).

Here, the parties agree that a stay is appropriate. The parties state a stay will allow them

to efficiently approach this litigation once the court rules on the critical issues of whether

Colorado Casualty had a duty to defend and indemnify Brock. Additionally, the parties argue a

stay will abate expenses that would be incurred in connection with fact and expert discovery

directed at the claims for common-law and statutory bad faith until this Court determines

whether coverage is available under the insurance policies at issue in the first instance. Thus, a

stay of discovery favors both parties. The court also considers its own convenience, the interests

Case 1:11-cv-02527-DME-KMT Document 59 Filed 04/03/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
4

of non-parties, and the public interest in general. None of these factors prompt the court to reach

a different result.

Therefore, it is 

ORDERED that the “Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Stay Current Case

Deadlines Pending Determination of Coverage Issues” (Doc. No. 55) is GRANTED. All

discovery in this matter is STAYED, and all deadlines are VACATED. The parties shall status

report within five days once the District Court issues its ruling on the parties’ Motions for

Summary Judgment setting forth the issues, if any, that remain in the case based on the Court’s

disposition of the coverage questions. 

Dated this 3rd day of April, 2012.

Case 1:11-cv-02527-DME-KMT Document 59 Filed 04/03/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4