UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

CYNTHIA JEAN LOTT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV422-123 ) DEE DEE NOEL ESTES, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER Defendant Dee Dee Noel Estes filed a Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff Cynthia Jean Lott and her counsel seeking, among other things, “dismissal of this action.” Doc. 20 at 1. The Motion for Sanctions is pending before the District Judge. See generally docket. Defendant subsequently filed a Consent Motion to Stay the Dispositive Motion and Status Report Deadlines Pending the Court’s Ruling on the Motion for Sanctions. Doc. 44; see also doc. 19 (the parties’ joint status report is currently due on February 20, 2023, and the last day for filing civil motions is currently March 10, 2023). For the following reasons, Defendant’s consent request is GRANTED. Doc. 44. When “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.” SP

Frederica, LLC v. Glynn Cnty.,

, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 8, 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Feldman v. Flood,

(M.D. Fla. 1997)). In weighing these interests, “a

court must take a ‘preliminary peek’ . . . to assess the likelihood that the motion will be granted.” Taylor v. Jackson,

, at *1 n.2 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 6, 2017) (quoting Sams v. GA West Gate, LLC,

, at *6 (S.D. Ga. June 10, 2016)). “[A] stay should be granted only where the motion to dismiss appears, upon preliminary review, to be clearly meritorious and truly case dispositive.” Sams,

at *6. “[A] request to stay discovery pending a resolution of a motion is rarely appropriate unless resolution of the motion will dispose of the entire case.” CSX Transp., Inc. v. United States,

, at *1 (S.D. Ga. May 30, 2014) (citing Feldman,

). Plaintiff consents to the stay request, and she does not indicate that she would be prejudiced by a stay. See doc. 44 at 1. And, upon

preliminary review, the Motion for Sanctions does not appear to be wholly meritless. See generally doc. 20; see also Arriaga-Zacarias v.

Lewis Taylor Farms, Inc.,

, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 10, 2008) (granting a stay of discovery deadlines when a motion to dismiss is not “meritless on its face”). Additionally, a ruling on the Motion for

Sanctions could be case-dispositive since it requests dismissal of the entire case. See doc. 20 at 1. On balance, then, a stay is appropriate. Defendant’s Consent Motion to Stay is GRANTED, and all

deadlines in this case are STAYED pending disposition of the Motion for Sanctions, doc. 20. Upon the District Judge’s disposition of the Motion for Sanctions, the Clerk is DIRECTED to lift the stay. If this case

remains pending after the disposition of the Motion for Sanctions, the parties are DIRECTED to confer and submit a joint status report no later than 14 days after the disposition proposing deadlines for the parties’ status report, and their civil motions, including Daubert motions but excluding motions in limine. SO ORDERED, this 13th day of February, 2023.

CHRISTO fe L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA