Order | Filed: August 25, 2026
| Entered: August 25, 2026
Murphy v. Children's Hospital Colorado et al
Civil Rights: Other | Colorado
Order on Motion to Stay Order on Motion to Supplement
ORDER Pending before the Court are Defendant's Motion to Stay [#170] (Defendant's Motion
), Plaintiff's First Motion to Stay Proceedings and Deadlines for 120 Days [#180] (Plaintiff's Stay Motion
), Plaintiff's First Motion to Supplement [#181] (Plaintiff's First Supplement Motion
), and Plaintiff's Supplemental Notice Regarding Defendant's Conferral Email [#183] (Plaintiff's Supplemental Notice
). Plaintiff's First Supplement Motion and Plaintiff's Supplemental Notice are both GRANTED to the extent they provide additional information in support of Plaintiff's First Supplement Motion and the Court will consider these two additional documents. When considering a motion to stay, courts in this district consider: (1) the interest of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously with discovery and the potential prejudice to the plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on the defendant of proceeding with discovery; (3) the convenience to the Court of staying discovery; (4) the interests of nonparties in either staying or proceeding with discovery; and (5) the public interest. See String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 1:02-cv-01934-LTB-PA, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006). Here, the Court finds that all five factors support a stay. First, while initially opposing a stay, due to her medical issues, Plaintiff now supports a stay, at least for a limited time. Second, this case involves several defendants and the burdens of proceeding in such a multi-defendant case are greater than the average litigation. Third, the Court will benefit from waiting to proceed until after the various motions to dismiss are decided, to see whether rulings on those motions narrow issues or parties, or perhaps resolve the case entirely. Fourth, while there is unlikely to be a huge impact on nonparties, to the extent there may be third party discovery or depositions, those parties would benefit in much the same way as the Court by delaying such discovery until any narrowing of issues has occurred. Finally, there is a public interest in reserving court resources until after a ruling on the dispositive motions. Thus, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED and the matter is stayed until after a ruling on the pending motions to dismiss. Plaintiff's Stay Motion is GRANTED to the extent it seeks a stay of discovery, for the reasons outlined herein. Plaintiff's Stay Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART to the extent it seeks an extension of time to respond to the motions to dismiss. Though the deadline to respond to the motions to dismiss have passed, the Court is cognizant of Plaintiff's pro se status and health issues, and will thus grant an additional 30 days for Plaintiff to respond to the motions to dismiss. The responses are thus due on September 24, 2026. Because this case has been pending for over a year and the case has not advanced yet to the stage of Plaintiff responding to the motions to dismiss, however, Plaintiff's Stay Motion is DENIED to the extent it seeks an additional 120 days for Plaintiff to respond to the motions to dismiss. SO ORDERED, by Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak on 8/25/2026. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry(stvlc7, )