Motion To Stay Discovery: Case Study

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Statesville HMA Medical Group, LLC, (hereinafter the “Practice” of the “Plaintiff”), by and through the undersigned counsel, and files this memorandum in support of its Motion to Stay Discovery, requesting the Court to stay discovery until after the adjudication of the Practice’s Motion to Dismiss all Counterclaims, filed on February 15, 2016.

I. Standard of Review

The North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure give the Court broad discretion to enter orders governing the timing and sequence of discovery. Wachovia Bank v. Clean River Corp., 178 N.C. App. 528, 531 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006). Upon a showing of good cause, the Court may enter an order staying discovery to protect a party from unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment,

App. 319, 323 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014).

The Supreme Court of North Carolina has recognized that “[t]he North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure are, for the most part, verbatim recitations of the federal rules.” Turner v. Duke, 325 N.C. 152, 164 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989). Accordingly, the Supreme Court of North Carolina has held that “[d]ecisions under the federal rules are . . . pertinent for guidance and enlightenment in developing the philosophy of the North Carolina rules.” Id.

It is well settled in the Fourth Circuit and North Carolina federal courts that “[a] protective order under Rule 26(c) to stay discovery pending determination of a dispositive motion is an appropriate exercise of the court’s discretion.” Tilley v. United States, 270 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734-35 (M.D.N.C. 2003). “In 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.” Simpson v. Specialty Retail Concepts, Inc., 121 F.R.D. 261, 263 (M.D.N.C. 1988). The Court may “peek” at the merits of the