Sanchez Villalobos v. United States

Background

The United States moved to stay, or pause, discovery. When it filed that motion, it said it expected to file an early motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but that dismissal motion had not yet been filed during the briefing period for the stay motion. The United States later filed its motion to dismiss on May 27, 2022. The court held a motions hearing on May 31, 2022, and took the stay motion under advisement.

The United States had also filed a motion for a protective order, which the court granted from the bench at the May 31 hearing. The court later issued the protective order. The court noted that little or no discovery had taken place and that the United States had represented it was ready to produce more than 500 pages of documents once a protective order was in place.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allows a court to stay discovery when the party requesting the stay shows good cause, including a need to avoid undue burden or expense. Courts also have authority to pause proceedings to manage their dockets, conserve judicial resources, and fairly resolve cases.

The court explained that it generally balances the moving party’s possible burden against the opposing party’s interest in obtaining discovery. It also considers whether the moving party is reasonably likely to succeed on its dispositive motion, whether denying a stay would cause hardship or unfairness, whether granting a stay would prejudice the other party, and whether a stay would conserve judicial resources. The filing of a motion to dismiss alone does not establish good cause for a discovery stay, although a stay may sometimes be appropriate when a strong motion could resolve all or nearly all of a case.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the United States’ motion to dismiss but made no prediction about its eventual outcome because full briefing had not yet occurred. Based only on the United States’ briefs, the court found that the motion appeared to have substantial grounds and was not legally unfounded. If granted in full, it would result in dismissal of all the plaintiffs’ claims. But the court found that this consideration favored denying a stay in light of the case’s discovery circumstances.

The court noted that the United States filed the motion to dismiss seven months after the complaint and during the fact-discovery period. The plaintiffs said they were concerned about their vulnerability to immigration removal proceedings. The court also noted that the United States had delayed filing its protective-order motion and had represented that it was ready to produce responsive documents once the protective order was in place.

The court found that the United States would suffer little prejudice if discovery continued. Although discovery might require the United States to spend resources on matters that could later prove irrelevant, the United States had chosen when to file its motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the United States could not persuasively rely on the burden of discovery after waiting months into the discovery period to file that motion.

The court found that the plaintiffs could be prejudiced by a stay. At the hearing, they argued that they were then in removal proceedings and might no longer be present in the country to pursue their claims when the motion to dismiss was resolved and any stay was lifted. The court also found that a stay would not best conserve judicial resources because responsive documents were ready to be produced and could address issues raised in the plaintiffs’ pending motion to compel or lead to further discovery disputes that the parties could address while awaiting a decision on the motion to dismiss.

Disposition

Judge John F. Docherty denied the United States of America’s Motion to Stay. The order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and expressly made no prediction about that motion’s eventual outcome.