IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

DUBLIN DIVISION

NATIONAL TRUST INSURANCE ) COMPANY and MONROE GUARANTY ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CV 319-067 ) TAYLOR & SONS, INC.; BRIAN LLOYD; ) BEVERLY LLOYD; JOE WOJTANIK; and ) MADELYN POLLACK, ) ) Defendants. ) _________

O R D E R _________ The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs and Defendants Brian Lloyd and Beverly Lloyd’s Joint Motion to Stay the Pre-Trial Proceedings, (doc. no. 23), pending resolution of Defendants Brian Lloyd and Beverly Lloyd’s Motion to Dismiss. The “[C]ourt has broad inherent power to stay discovery until preliminary issues can be settled which may be dispositive of some important aspect of the case.” Feldman v. Flood,

(M.D. Fla. 1997). Before deciding to stay discovery, the Court should: 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. This involves weighing the likely costs and burdens of proceeding with discovery. It may be helpful to take a preliminary peek at the merits of the allegedly dispositive motion to see if on its face there appears to be an immediate and clear possibility that it will be granted.

(internal citation and quotation omitted). Based on a preliminary peek at the joint motion, the Court finds an immediate and clear possibility of a ruling “which may be dispositive of some important aspect of the case.” Indeed, Defendants Brian Lloyd and Beverly Lloyd have moved for dismissal of the case in its entirety. (Doc. no. 17.) When balancing the costs and burdens to the parties, the Court concludes discovery should be stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. See Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp.,

(11th Cir. 1997); Moore v. Potter,

(11th Cir. 2005). For these reasons, the Court STAYS discovery pending final resolution of Defendants Brian Lloyd and Beverly Lloyd’s motion to dismiss. Should any portion of the case remain after resolution of the motion, the parties shall confer and submit a joint Rule 26(f) Report, with proposed case deadlines, within fourteen days of the presiding District Judge’s ruling. SO ORDERED this 10th day of February, 2020, at Augusta, Georgia.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA