PDF Page
1 |
PlainSite Cover Page |
|
PDF Page
2 |
Case 8:23-cv-01535-TPB-AAS Document 33 Filed 09/28/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 368
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
TRUMP MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY
GROUP CORP.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No.: 8:23-cv-1535-TPB-AAS
WP COMPANY LLC d/b/a
The Washington Post,
Defendant.
_______________________________________/
ORDER
Defendant WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post (the Post)
requests entry of an order staying discovery pending resolution of its motion to
dismiss Plaintiff Trump Media & Technology Group Corp.’s (TMTG) complaint
and TMTG’s motion to remand. (Docs. 24, 25). TMTG opposes the motion. (Doc.
29). The Post replied in support of its motion to stay. (Doc. 32).
District courts have inherent power to control their dockets and manage
their cases. Equity Lifestyle Prop., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing and Landscaping Serv.,
Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2009). This inherent power includes the
discretion to stay the proceedings. Andersons, Inc. v. Enviro Granulation, LLC,
No. 8:13-cv-3004-T-33MAP, 2014 WL 4059886 at * 2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2014).
Motions to stay discovery, however, “are not favored because when discovery
1 |
|
PDF Page
3 |
Case 8:23-cv-01535-TPB-AAS Document 33 Filed 09/28/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 369
is delayed or prolonged it can create case management problems which impede
the Court’s responsibility to expedite discovery and unnecessary litigation
expenses and problems.” Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla.
1997). This district’s discovery manual instructs:
Normally, the pendency of a motion to dismiss or a
motion for summary judgment will not justify a
unilateral motion to stay discovery pending resolution
of the dispositive motion. Such motions for stay are
rarely granted. However, unusual circumstances may
justify a stay of discovery in a particular case upon a
specific showing of prejudice or undue burden.
Middle District Discovery (2021) § I.E.4.
In deciding a defendant’s request for a stay of discovery pending a ruling
on a dispositive motion, “it is necessary for the court to ‘take a preliminary
peek’ at the merits of the [dispositive motion] to see if it appears to be clearly
meritorious and truly case dispositive.” Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652. When
evaluating whether a motion to dismiss is “clearly meritorious,” courts consider
whether “any binding Eleventh Circuit authority” clearly requires dismissal of
the claims. See Meyer v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-393-J34JBT, 2014 WL 5471114, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2014).
A preliminary review of the Post’s motion to dismiss reveals it does not
meet the extraordinarily stringent “clearly meritorious” standard. The Post
also failed to demonstrate a specific showing of prejudice or undue burden if
2 |
|
PDF Page
4 |
Case 8:23-cv-01535-TPB-AAS Document 33 Filed 09/28/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 370
discovery proceeds. Thus, the balance tips in favor of requiring discovery to go
forward.
In addition, neither granting nor denying the motion to remand would
eliminate the need for discovery. See Carapella v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., No.
8:18-cv-2396-T-36CPT, 2018 WL 7268163 at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2018) (“Even
if the case is remanded, the discovery obtained in federal court can be used in
state court.”).
Accordingly, the Post’s Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 24) is DENIED.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on September 28, 2023.
3 |
|
|
Back to 
