United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Algenon L. Marbley, Judge
OPINION AND ORDER
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court for consideration of
Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery. (ECF No. 15.) For
the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion is
September 2017, Plaintiff filed her Complaint alleging that
Defendant discriminated against her on the basis of sex. (ECF
No. 1 at 1.) On November 10, 2017, Defendant filed its Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and Compel Arbitration.
(ECF No. 3.) In its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant asserts that
Plaintiff entered into a “Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate
All Employment Related Claims, ” which divests this
Court of jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's claims. On
February 2, 2018, Defendant filed the instant motion seeking
a stay of discovery pending the Court's disposition of
its Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration. (ECF No. 15.)
reviewed Defendant's Motion to Stay and the pending
Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration, the Court is
persuaded that a temporary stay of discovery pending
resolution of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Compel
Arbitration is warranted.
district court has “the inherent power to stay
proceedings based on its authority to manage its docket
efficiently.” Ferrell v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs.,
Inc., No. 1:01-cv-447, 2005 WL 2709623, *1 (S.D. Ohio
Oct. 21, 2005) (citing In re Airline Pilots Ass'n. v.
Miller, 523 U.S. 866, 880 (1998)); see also Landis
v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). The Court,
however, “‘must tread carefully in granting a
stay of proceedings since a party has a right to a
determination of its rights and liabilities without undue
delay.'” Id. (quoting Ohio Envtl.
Council v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 565 F.2d 393, 396 (6th Cir.
1977)). In deciding whether to grant a stay, courts commonly
consider factors such as: (1) the need for a stay; (2) the
stage of litigation; (3) whether the non-moving party will be
unduly prejudiced or tactically disadvantaged; (4) whether a
stay will simplify the issues; and (5) whether burden of
litigation will be reduced for both the parties and the
court. Grice Eng'g, Inc. v. JG Innovs., Inc.,
691 F.Supp.2d 915, 920 (W.D. Wis. 2010) (citations omitted).
The movant bears the burden of showing both a need for delay
and that “neither the other party nor the public will
suffer harm from entry of the order.” Ohio Envtl.
Council, 565 F.2d at 396.
recognize a strong presumption in favor of arbitration.
Huffman v. Hilltop Cos., LLC, 747 F.3d 391,
396 (6th Cir. 2014). Should Defendant prevail in compelling
arbitration, it will be protected from the expense of
litigation in this Court. “The arbitrability of a
dispute similarly gives the party moving to enforce an
arbitration provision a right not to litigate the dispute in
a court and bear the associated burdens.” Blinco v.
Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 366 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th
Cir. 2004). The burden of litigation includes not just time
and financial resources, but also the possible disclosure of
[A]llowing discovery to proceed could alter the nature of the
dispute significantly by requiring parties to disclose
sensitive information that could have a bearing on the
resolution of the matter. If we later hold that the claims
were indeed subject to mandatory arbitration, the parties
will not be able to unring any bell rung by discovery, and
they will be forced to endure the consequences of litigation
discovery in the arbitration process.
Levin v. Alms & Associates, Inc., 634 F.3d 260,
265 (4th Cir. 2011). This is particularly true when, as here,
the federal rules would compel discovery otherwise not
permitted by the discovery rules in arbitration.
(See ECF No. 3-2 at 6 (setting forth permissible
discovery under the parties' arbitration agreement).)
although the case has been in this Court since September
2017, it is still in its procedural infancy and has been
stayed several months already. (ECF No. 11.) A further, brief
stay pending resolution of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
and Compel Arbitration will not prejudice Plaintiff and ...