Order | Filed: September 08, 2026
| Entered: September 08, 2026
DAMIAN v. VALO HOLDINGS GROUPS, LLC et al
Contract: Other | Florida Southern
Order on Expedited Motion
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Expedited Motion to Stay Mediation and Expert Discovery Deadlines Pending Rulings on Motions to Dismiss (DE 78 ) ("Expedited Motion"). In the Expedited Motion, Defendants seek a stay of all expert discovery deadlines and a continuance of the mediation date pending rulings on the three pending motions to dismiss. (DE 48 , 49 , 50 ).
Federal courts have broad discretion to stay proceedings as part of their inherent authority to control their docket. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). A stay of discovery is appropriate where the movant shows good cause and reasonableness. See Varga v. Palm Beach Cap. Mgmt., LLC, 2010 WL 8510622, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 3, 2010). Here, the Defendants argue that allowing both parties to produce expert reports after fact discovery will allow experts to "meaningfully consider a fulsome record." Defendants also argue that there exists a "discovery asymmetry" in favor of Plaintiff, which Defendants posit, precludes them from preparing their experts or meaningfully evaluating the prospect of settlement. The Court notes, however, that despite the purported discovery disputes, Defendants have not availed themselves of the proscribed method for resolving discovery disputes as outlined in Local Rule 26(g)(2) or the Court's Order Setting Discovery Procedures. (DE 20 ). Instead, Defendants waited 10 days before mediation (DE 69 )-- a date the Court notes was agreed upon by all Parties, to file this Expedited Motion. Defendants further argue that without the stay, the Parties will spend substantial time and expense preparing experts to address claims that may no longer exist. (DE 78 ). In response, Plaintiff argues that the motions to dismiss are not case dispositive and do not warrant a stay of expert discovery and mediation deadlines. (DE 79 ).
Upon review of the Motion, the record, and applicable law, the Court finds that a stay of expert discovery deadlines and a continuance of the mediation date pending rulings on the three motions to dismiss is not warranted. The Complaint was filed on November 24, 2025 (DE 1 ), Defendants sought, and received, several extensions of time to respond to the Complaint (DE 18 , 21 , 36 , 44 ); filing three seprate motions to dismiss more than three months after the last Defendant was served. (DE 48 , 49 , 50 ). Defendants have had ample time to conduct fact discovery, seek leave of Court to resolve discovery disputes that could not be agreed upon by the Parties, and provide their experts with a fulsome record. ... (truncated)