Defendant filed a motion to stay discovery while its motion to dismiss is pending. Defendant argued in its motion that it will suffer undue burden or expense if discovery is allowed to continue in this case because its pending motion to dismiss may dispose of Plaintiff’s claims against it or at least narrow and inform the scope of discovery. Slip. Op. at 1. In addition, Defendant filed counterclaims against Plaintiff adding what it alleged are related entities, which have not appeared in the case yet.
The Court denied the motion, noting that under Fifth Circuit law, motions to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) are viewed with disfavor and rarely granted. Slip. Op. at 1. The Court further noted that it “rarely grants a stay pending resolution of a motion to dismiss, except in unusual circumstances where there is a good cause to do so.” Id. The Court held that this case does not present any unusual circumstances that would justify granting the stay and therefore denied the stay. Id. at 2. With respect to the other parties that have not appeared yet, the Court noted that the parties may move to amend any future scheduling orders as needed to accommodate the new parties. Id.