Papetti v. DICOM Grid: Discovery Stay Granted, 13th Mar

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Michael Papetti v. DICOM Grid, Inc., et al.

District Court, E.D. North Carolina

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 5:25-cv-00634

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:25-CV-00634-BO

Michael Papetti,

Plaintiff,

v. Order

DICOM Grid, Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

This matter comes before the court upon the parties joint motion to stay. D.E. 22. They
request a stay of discovery until the court resolves the Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss.
D.E. 18. The pending dispositive motion may resolve the case, obviating the need for discovery,
or narrow its scope. So some of the time and expense attendant to discovery may be unnecessary.
“A motion to stay discovery is tantamount to a request for a protective order prohibiting or
limiting discovery pursuant to Rule 26(c).” Kron Med. Corp. v. Groth, 119 F.R.D. 636, 637 (M.D.N.C. 1988). Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure gives the court, among other
things, the authority to issue a protective order staying discovery while it resolves a motion to
dismiss. Tilley v. United States, 270 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (M.D.N.C. 2003); Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(c)(1)(B) & (D). As with all protective orders, the moving party must show good cause for the
court to issue the order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).
With no guidance from the Fourth Circuit, district courts have looked at several factors
when considering whether to grant a motion to stay discovery. Among them are whether the
motion, if granted, would dispose of the entire case, Simpson v. Specialty Retail Concepts, Inc., 121 F.R.D. 261, 263 (M.D.N.C. 1988), the strength of the motion’s arguments, Tilley, 270 F. Supp.
2d at 734–35; and whether discovery is necessary for the non-moving party to respond to the
motion, id. at 734. But, at bottom, the court 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, 121 F.R.D. at 263.
Here, balancing these factors supports granting the motion to stay. Until the court disposes
of the pending motion to dismiss, it is uncertain what discovery may be required. The resolution
of the pending motion may narrow discovery or eliminate its need entirely. And the motion to
dismiss requires no discovery for the court to decide it.
The Defendants set forth reasonable arguments in support of its motion to dismiss. Plaintiff
may similarly offer plausible arguments once he files a response to the motion. On the other side
of the ledger are the costs of discovery, which could be substantial.
It is an open question whether the court will grant the pending motion to dismiss. If the
motion is granted, some if not all of the time and resources devoted to discovery may be for naught.

The court is mindful of the interests in moving a case forward. But given the nature of the action,
delaying discovery will not prejudice either side’s ability to pursue its claims or defenses should
the court deny the pending motion.
After balancing the relevant factors, the court finds that there is good cause to stay
discovery. So the court orders that, unless they agree otherwise, the entry of a Scheduling Order
and any discovery are postponed until the court resolves the pending motion to dismiss. If court
the denies the motion, in whole or in part, the parties must confer and submit a new Rule 26(f)
report within 14 days from the entry of the order on the motion.
Dated: March 13, 2026 ME
Robert T. Numbers, II
United States Magistrate Judge