United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, 2026

Ernest Morris v. Billy Woods, in his official capacity as Sheriff, Marion...

Ernest Morris v. Billy Woods, in his official capacity as Sheriff, Marion...
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · Decided February 4, 2026
Ernest Morris v. Billy Woods, in his official capacity as Sheriff, Marion...

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION ERNEST MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 5:25-cv-463-ACC-PRL BILLY WOODS, in his official capacity as Sheriff, Marion County, Florida, et al., Defendants.

ORDER This matter is before the Court on the parties’ joint motion to stay discovery pending resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. 34).

The party seeking to stay discovery has “the burden of showing good cause and reasonableness.” McCabe v. Foley, 233 F.R.D. 683, 687 (M.D. Fla. 2006). “‘In deciding whether to stay discovery pending resolution of a pending motion, the Court inevitably must balance the harm produced by a delay in discovery against the possibility that the motion will be granted and entirely eliminate the need for such discovery.’” Id. (quoting Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997). Motions to stay discovery are disfavored as they “can create case management problems which impede the Court's responsibility to expediate discovery and cause unnecessary litigation expenses and problems.” Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997).

Accordingly, a stay pending resolution of a motion is rarely appropriate unless the resolution of the motion would dispose of the discovery altogether. Arnold v. Target Contractors LLC, No. 5:24-cv-276-ACC-PRL, 2025 WL 239476, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan.

17, 2025) (quoting Sonate Corp. v. Dunkin’ Brands Grp., Inc., No. 6:22-cv-812-WWB- EJK, 2023 WL 2391709, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2023).

Here, to support their motion, the parties simply state that “[t]he Court’s resolution of the Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be dispositive of the case, or, even if denied, is likely to significantly narrow the matters underlying discovery.” (Doc. 34 at 94). This speculative statement fails to convince the Court that a stay is appropriate or reasonable in this case. Accordingly, the parties’ joint motion to stay (Doc. 34) is due to be denied.

DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on February 4, 2026.

Fe aterm United States Magistrate Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties -2-

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.