Motion to Stay Discovery in Virginia

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Stay Discovery

“Discovery is the process by which facts resting within the knowledge of one party are disclosed to another party in a suit or proceeding in court.” (See Temple v. Mary Wash. Hosp., Inc. (2014) 762 S.E.2d 751, 754.)

“One purpose of the discovery process is to disclose all relevant and material evidence before trial in order that the trial may be an effective method for arriving at the truth and not a battle of wits between counsel.” (See Little v. Cooke (2007) 274 Va. 697, 717; Moore v. Moore, Record No. 0314-20-4, at *21 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2020).)

“Rule 4:1(b)(1) states that with certain exceptions [p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party." (See Nizan v. Wells Fargo Bank (2007) 274 Va. 481, 500.)

“It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (See Hall v. Hall, Record No. 2021-04-4, at *1 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2005).)

“However, that rule also provides that the court may limit the frequency or extent of discovery methods if it determines that: . . . (iii) the discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, limitations on the parties' resources, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.” (See Rule 4:1(b); Nizan v. Wells Fargo Bank Minn. Nat'l Assoc. (2007) 274 Va. 481, 500, 650 S.E.2d 497, 507; Makoui v. Makoui, Record No. 0672-11-3, at *9 (Va. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2011).)

As such, “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” (See Primov v. Serco, Inc. (2018) 817 S.E.2d 811, 815.)

“A stay may promote judicial efficiency in the administration of the litigation.” (See Reaves v. Tucker (2017) 67 Va. App. 719, 729.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Stay Discovery

“The decision to stay a proceeding is a discretionary matter.” (See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Estate of Harrison (2014) 765 S.E.2d 154, 158; Williams v. Williams (1945) 184 Va. 124, 127, 34 S.E.2d 378, 379 [addressing whether the circuit court abuse[d] its discretion in refusing to stay the proceedings].) 

“This standard requires the Court to show enough deference to a primary decision maker's judgment that the [reviewing] court does not reverse merely because it would have come to a different result in the first instance.” (See Race v. Commonwealth, No. 0691-22-4, at *4 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2022).)

“A trial court's decisions on such matters will generally not be reversed on appeal unless the action taken was improvident and affected substantial rights.” (See Temple v. Mary Wash. Hosp., Inc. (2014) 762 S.E.2d 751, 753.)

“A trial court commits an abuse of discretion when:

1. it fails to consider a relevant factor that should have been given significant weight;
2. it considers and gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor; or
3. it considers all proper factors, and no improper ones, but, in weighing those factors, the court commits a clear error in judgment.”

(See Barnes v. Commonwealth (2020) 72 Va.App. 160, 167; Race v. Commonwealth, No. 0691-22-4, at *4 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2022).)

“The abuse of discretion standard recognizes that a court has a range of choice and that its decision will not be disturbed as long as it stays within that range and is not influenced by any mistake of law." (See Galiotos v. Galiotos (2021) 300 Va. 1, 10, 858 S.E.2d 653; Payne v. Payne (2023) 77 Va. App. 570, 590.)

"Although we review a ruling on discovery for abuse of discretion, a lower court's interpretation of a statute or the rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia presents a question subject to de novo review on appeal." (See Patel v. Rabinowitz ex rel. Lakhani Assocs. (2022) 75 Va. App. 663, 669-70; Nimety v. Commonwealth (2016) 66 Va. App. 432, 437, 786 S.E.2d 835.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Stay Discovery

It is well settled that “the plain language of Rule 4:1(b)(1) indicates, a party's request for discovery will not be denied so long as it is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. The rule thus establishes a broad scope for discovery requests, defining the relevancy of such requests by relation to the subject matter of the action, regardless of whether [they] relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party." (See Hall v. Hall, Record No. 2021-04-4, at *1 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2005); Lyle, Siegel, Croshaw Beale, P.C. v. Tidewater Capital Corp. (1995) 249 Va. 426, 438-39, 457 S.E.2d 28, 36.)

It is also well settled that “under the Scripps-Howard doctrine, a federal court has inherent authority to stay an administrative action to preserve the status quo pending appeal.” (See Nat'l Ass'n for Advancement of Colored People v. Commonwealth ex rel. Va. State Water Control Bd. (2022) 74 Va. App. 702, 716.)