SAYLOR et al v. KRUPP et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
PHILLIP SAYLOR, et al.,
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-01820-JRS-MJD
)
ADAM KRUPP, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending
Resolution of Motion to Dismiss. [Dkt. 14.] For the reasons set forth below, the motion is
DENIED.
On November 25, 2025, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss this case, arguing that
some claims should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction, and others pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
On December 1, 2025, Defendants filed the instant motion, asking the Court to stay this case in
its entirety pending resolution of their motion to dismiss.
A court may stay a case through an exercise of its inherent authority to manage litigation
and may stay discovery through its authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). See,
e.g., E.E.O.C. v. Fair Oaks Dairy Farms, LLC, 2012 WL 3138108, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Aug.1, 2012)
(citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(c)(1) ("The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense[.]"). As the Court has stated
before:
Case 1:25-cv-01820-JRS-MJD Document 15 Filed 12/04/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
The party seeking a stay has no absolute right to a stay; rather, that party "bears
the burden of proof to show that the Court should exercise its discretion in staying
the case[.]" Cloverleaf Golf Course, Inc. v. FMC Corp., No. 11–CV–190–DRH,
2011 WL 2838178, at *2 (S.D. Ill. July 15, 2011) (citing Indiana State Police
Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC, 556 U.S. 960, 961, 129 S. Ct. 2275, 173 L.Ed.2d
1285 (2009)).
To carry its burden, the movant must show that good cause exists for the stay: the
good cause determination encompasses factors such as whether the stay will
prejudice the non-movant; whether the stay will simplify the issues in the case;
and whether the stay will reduce the burden of litigation for the parties or the
court. 	Fair Oaks Dairy Farms, 2012 WL 3138108, at *2 (citing Abbott
Laboratories v. Matrix Laboratories, Inc., 2009 WL 3719214, *2 (N.D. Ill.
2009)); see also id. (emphasis added) (quotation marks and citations omitted)
("[The Court should] balance interests favoring a stay against interests frustrated
by the action in light of the court's paramount obligation to exercise jurisdiction
timely in cases properly before it."). 	District courts have "extremely broad
discretion" in weighing these factors and in deciding whether a stay should issue.
Cloverleaf, 2011 WL 2838178, at *2 (emphasis original) (citing Crawford-El v.
Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598, 118 S.Ct. 1584, 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998)).
U.S. ex rel. Robinson v. Indiana Univ. Health Inc., 2015 WL 3961221, at *1-2 (S.D. Ind. June 30,
2015). There are instances in which a party could demonstrate that staying discovery is the
better course of action. However, the Court, in its discretion, finds that Defendants have not
done so in this case.
The crux of Defendants' position is that they should not have to expend resources to
litigate this case because they believe their motion to dismiss will be successful and any
litigation efforts undertaken in the meantime will thus have been wasted. However, district
courts are tasked with ensuring the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination" of every case
before it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. There is certainly a chance that the motion to dismiss will be wholly
successful and this case will be dismissed in its entirety, although likely not until Plaintiff has
had the opportunity to replead any claims dismissed for failure to state a claim. See Barry
Aviation, Inc. v. Land O'Lakes Mun. Airport Comm'n, 377 F.3d 682, 687 (7th Cir. 2004) ("The
better practice is to allow at least one amendment regardless of how unpromising the initial
Case 1:25-cv-01820-JRS-MJD Document 15 Filed 12/04/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
pleading appears because except in unusual circumstances it is unlikely that the court will be
able to determine conclusively on the face of a defective pleading whether plaintiff actually can
state a claim.") (quotation marks and citation omitted). However, it is also possible that some or
all Plaintiff's claims will go forward. In that case, the issuance of a stay will have served no
purpose other than to delay the ultimate resolution of the case, thwarting the "speedy" part of the
Court's mandate.
The existence of these competing considerations is why staying discovery is the
exception, not the norm. Indeed, "Courts disfavor stays of discovery 'because they bring
resolution of the dispute to a standstill.'" Edon v. PNC Bank, 2025 WL 1598977, at *1 (S.D. Ind.
May 23, 2025) (quoting DDML Holdings LLC v. Hennessy, 2024 WL 3400230, at *1 (S.D. Ind.
2024), reconsideration denied, 2024 WL 3718146 (S.D. Ind. 2024)) (in turn quoting Red Barn
Motors, Inc. v. Cox Enterprises, Inc., 2016 WL 1731328, at *3 (S.D. Ind. 2016)). In order to
show the Court that it should exercise its discretion and stay discovery, Defendant must thus
demonstrate that there is some reason to do so in this case that would not also exist any time a
motion to dismiss is filed in a case. Defendant has not done so here. Therefore, the motion to
stay is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: 4 DEC 2025
Distribution:
Service will be made electronically on all
ECF-registered counsel of record via email
generated by the Court's ECF system.
Case 1:25-cv-01820-JRS-MJD Document 15 Filed 12/04/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>