POOLE v. NEW REZ LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
VALERIE M. POOLE, 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	2:24-cv-00092-SDN
)
NEW REZ, LLC, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER ON MOTION TO STAY AND FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
Defendants ask the Court to stay discovery and order that they are not required to
respond to Plaintiff’s discovery initiatives until after the Court rules on Defendants’
pending motion to dismiss. (Motion for Stay and for Protective Order, ECF No. 34.)
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), “[a] party may not seek
discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f),
except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when
authorized … by stipulation, or by court order.” The record does not reflect that the parties
have conferred as contemplated by Rule 26(f), and the Court has not issued a scheduling
order to govern discovery.
Upon review of the docket, the Court discerns no reason to deviate from the general
rule to defer discovery until after the Court determines whether Plaintiff can proceed on a
claim. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009) (noting that pleading rules
“do[ ] not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff” with a complaint that fails to state
Case 2:24-cv-00092-SDN Document 36 Filed 10/01/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
a valid claim); Kolley v. Adult Protective Servs., 725 F.3d 581, 587 (6th Cir. 2013)
(plaintiffs are generally not entitled to discovery before resolution of a motion to dismiss
because “dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) helps protect defendants from expending resources
on costly discovery for cases that will not survive . . .”).
The Court, therefore, grants Defendants’ motion to stay and for a protective order.
The parties shall not conduct discovery and Defendants are not obligated to respond to
Plaintiff’s discovery requests until after the Court rules on Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
NOTICE
Any objections to this Order shall be filed in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 1st day of October, 2024.
Case 2:24-cv-00092-SDN Document 36 Filed 10/01/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>