Frequently, when a defendant files a case-dispositive motion early in a proceeding, the parties informally agree to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion. In the event that the plaintiff seeks to proceed with discovery notwithstanding the pendency of the potentially case-dispositive motion, a defendant may proceed to move to stay discovery.
Courts have the power to stay discovery in appropriate cases.91 The decision whether to stay discovery is within the discretion of the court in its supervision of the pre-trial process.92 The burden is on the one who seeks to delay discovery to establish some practical reason why discovery should be stayed.93
It is recognized that efficiency is promoted by a rule that, absent special circumstances, discovery should be stayed pending determination of a motion to dismiss where the grounds for the motion offer a reasonable expectation that if the motion is granted, litigation will be ended.94 Nonetheless, the mere pendency of a motion to dismiss will not automatically trigger a stay of discovery.95 Rather, a court will balance the costs and hardships to the defendant if discovery were to proceed against the plaintiff’s need for discovery and the risk of injury to the plaintiff if a stay were to be granted.96
If discovery is inevitable, either in the present forum or elsewhere, a motion to stay may be denied because any discovery taken will not be wasted regardless of the outcome of the motion to dismiss.97 Thus, for example, a court may deny a motion to stay discovery if there is pending a motion to dismiss based on a claimed lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the result of which would be merely to transfer the action to a different court rather than dispose of the litigation.98 The fact that a plaintiff may refile the lawsuit in a proper venue does not mean that discovery is inevitable — 0therwise, the mere assertion of intent to refile would be sufficient to defeat a motion to stay discovery.98.1
Where the ground for the motion is based on a claimed lack of personal jurisdiction, the court may limit discovery to facts necessary to determine whether the court can assert jurisdiction over the defendant.99 The fact that a motion to dismiss is directed to only a portion of the complaint is also a factor militating against a stay of discovery.100
Other factors which may lead a court to deny a motion to stay discovery include whether there is a pending motion for a preliminary injunction or other emergency relief which requires discovery in order to be presented;101 the potential length of the stay, i.e., whether it appears that the motion to dismiss will be decided promptly102 or whether there will be a considerable lapse of time before the issue raised by the motion is resolved;103 whether the discovery request is burdensome or overly broad;104 and whether a delay will make evidence more difficult to obtain or otherwise hinder the plaintiff’s ability to inquire fully and fairly into the relevant facts.105
91. Ch. Ct. R. 26(c)(l); Super. Ct. Civ. R. 26(c)(l); Comm. Pls. Ct. Civ. R. 26(c)(l); Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 26(c)(1); Corporate Property v. AmerSig Graphics, Inc., C.A. No. 13241,slip op. at 2, Chandler, V.C. (Del. Ch. Dec. 9, 1993); Pensionskasse Der ASCOOP v. Randor Int’l Holding, Ltd., C.A. No. 12686, slip op. at 2, Chandler, V.C. (Del. Ch. Jan. 26, 1993).
92. Fish Engineering Corp. v. Hutchinson, 162 A.2d 722, 725 (Del. 1960); Orloff v. Schulman, C.A. No. 852-N, slip op. at 2, Lamb. V.C. (Del. Ch. Feb. 2, 2005); Szeto v. Schiffer, C.A. No. 12,934, slip op. at 4, Hartnett, V.C. (Del. Ch. Nov. 24, 1993); Wallace v. Durwood, C.A. No. 12939, slip op. at 6, Allen, C. (Del. Ch. Nov. 1, 1993); Darneille v. Santa Fe Industries, Inc., C.A. No. 5287, slip op. at 5, Marvel, C. (Del. Ch. Sept. 14, 1979); Voege v. Arduser, C.A. No. 5639, slip op. at 2, Hartnett, V.C. (Del. Ch. Aug. 10, 1978).
93. TravelCenters of America, LLC v. Brog, C.A. No. 3751-CC, slip op. at 2, Chandler, C. (Del. Ch. Nov. 21, 2008); Corporate Property v. AmerSig Graphics, Inc., C.A. No. 13241, slip op. at 3, Chandler, V.C. (Del. Cli. Dec. 9, 1993); Szeto v. Schiffer, C.A. No. 12,934, slip op. at 4, Hartnett, V.C. (Del. Ch. Nov. 24, 1993); Pensionskasse Der ASCOOP v. Randor Int’l Holding, Ltd., C.A. No. 12686, slip op. at 2, Chandler, V.C. (Del. Ch. Jan. 26, 1993); Voege v. Arduser, C.A. No. 5639, slip op. at 2, Hartnett, V.C. (Del. Ch. Aug. 10, 1978).
94. TravelCenters of America, LLC v. Brog, C.A. No. 3751-CC, slip op. at 5-6, Chandler, C. (Del. Ch. Nov. 21, 2008); Corporate Property v. AmerSig Graphics, Inc., C.A. No. 13241, slip op. at 3, Chandler, V.C. (Del. Ch. Dec. 9, 1993); Wallace v. Durwood, C.A. No. 12939, slip op. at 7, Allen, C. (Del. Ch. Nov. 1, 1993); Voege v. Arduser, C.A. No. 5639, slip op. at 2, Hartnett, V.C. (Del. Ch. Aug. 10, 1978).
95. Corporate Property v. AmerSig Graphics, Inc., C.A. No. 13241, slip op. at 3, Chandler, V.C (Del. Ch. Dec. 9, 1993); Szeto v. Schiffer, C.A. No. 12,934, slip op. at 4, Hartnett, V.C. (Del. Ch. Nov. 24, 1993); Pensionskasse Der ASCOOP v. Randor Int’l Holding, Ltd., C.A. No. 12686. slip op. at 2, Chandler, V.C. (Del. Ch. Jan. 26, 1993); Voege v. Arduser, C.A. No. 5639, slip op. at 2, Hartnett, V.C. (Del. Ch. Aug. 10, 1978).
96. Bonham v. HBW Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 920-N, slip op. at 2, Parsons, V.C. (Del. Ch. Sept. 20, 2005); Corporate Property v. AmerSig Graphics, Inc., C.A. No. 13241, slip op. at 2, Chandler, V.C. (Del. Ch. Dcc. 9, 1993); Szeto v. Sehiffer, C.A. No. 12,934, slip op. at 5-6, Hartnett, V.C. (Del. Ch. Nov. 24, 1993); Schick Inc. v. Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers IJnion, C.A. No. 9066, slip op. at 4, Allen, C. (Del. Ch. June 18, 1987).
97. Szeto v. Schiffer, C.A. No. 12,934, slip op. at 6, Hartnett, V.C. (Del. Ch. Nov. 24, 1993); Pensionskasse Der ASCOOP v. Randor Int’l Holding, Ltd., C.A. No. 12686, slip op. at 3, Chandler, V.C. (Del. Ch. Jan. 26, 1993); Schick Inc. v. Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, C.A. No. 9066, slip op. at 4, Alien, C. (Del. Ch. June 18, 1987).
98. Pensionskasse Der ASCOOP v. Randor Int’l Holding, Ltd., C.A. No. 12686, slip op. at 3, Chandler, V.C. (Del. Ch. Jan. 26, 1993); Boxer v. Husky Oil Co., C.A. No. 6261, slip op. at 1-2, Hartnett, V.C. (Del. Ch. Dec. 15, 1980).
98.1. Weschler v. Quad-C, Inc., C.A. No. 18118, Jacobs, V.C. (Del. Ch. Sept. 12, 2000).
99. See Hastings v. Tribull, C.A. No. 9143, slip op. at 2, Hartnett, V.C. (Del. Ch. Feb. 2, 1989).
100. Corporate Property v. AmerSig Graphics, Inc., C.A. No. 13241, slip op. at 3, Chandler, V.C. (Del. Ch. Dec. 9, 1993). See also Darneille v. Santa Fe Industries, Inc., C.A. No. 5287, slip Op. at 5, Marvel, C. (Del. Ch. Sept. 14, 1979).
101. Szeto v. Schiffer, CA. No. 12,934, slip op. at 6, Hartnett, V.C. (Del. Ch. Nov. 24, 1993); Pensionskasse Der ASCOOP v. Randor Int’l Holding, Ltd., C.A. No. 12686, slip op. at 3, Chandler, V.C. (Del. Ch. Jan. 26, 1993); Schick Inc. v. Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, C.A. No. 9066, slip op. at 4, Allen, C. (Del. Ch. June 18, 1987); Weinberger v. Amstar Corp., C.A. No. 7322, slip op. at 2-3, Hartnett, V.C. (Del. Ch. Jan. 16, 1984).
102. Szeto v. Shiffer, C.A. No. 12,934, slip op. at 6, Hartnett, V.C. (Del. Ch. Nov. 24, 1993); Singer v. Magnavox Co., C.A. No. 4929, slip op. at 3-4, Brown, V.C. (Del. Ch. Feb. 12, 1976).
103. Voege v. Arduser, C.A. No. 5639, slip op. at 3, Hartnett, V.C. (Del. Ch. Aug. 10, 1978).
104. Pensionskasse Der ASCOOP v. Randor Int’l Holding, Ltd., C.A. No. 12686, slip op. at 6, Chandler, V.C. (Del. Ch. Jan. 26, 1993).
105. Corporate Property v. AmerSig Graphics, Inc., C.A. No 13241, slip op. at 4, Chandler, V.C. (Del. Ch. Dec. 9, 1993); Schick Inc. v. Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, C.A. No. 9066, slip op. at 4, Allen, C. (Del. Ch. June 18, 1987).
© 2010 David L. Finger