Motion to Stay Discovery in Indiana

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Stay Discovery

“A trial court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings.” (See Fry v. Schroder (2013) 986 N.E.2d 821, 823.)

“Trial Rule 62(B) provides in pertinent part, in its discretion and on such conditions for the security of the adverse party as are proper, the court may stay the execution of or any proceedings to enforce a judgment pending the filing and disposition of . . . (5) an appeal." (See Hilliard v. Jacobs (2010) 927 N.E.2d 393, 403.)

Factors a Court Considers When Deciding a Motion to Stay Discovery

“Although it is under no constitutional obligation to do so, the court has discretion to impose a stay when the interests of justice so require.” (See Hardiman v. Cozmanoff (2014) 4 N.E.3d 1148, 1152-53.)

“When making that determination, the court may consider: (1) the interest of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously with the litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to the plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on the defendant; (3) the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the interest of the public in pending civil and criminal litigation.” (See id.)

“The trial court is not limited to a consideration of only those factors, however, and courts in other jurisdictions have noted the degree of similarity between the issues in both cases is frequently the most important factor.” (See id.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Stay Discovery

“We review motions to stay enforcement under an abuse of discretion standard.” (See Hilliard v. Jacobs (2010) 927 N.E.2d 393, 403.)

“An abuse of discretion is found only when the trial court's action is clearly erroneous, against the logic and effect of the facts before it and the inferences which may be drawn from it.” (See In re A.K. (2001) 755 N.E.2d 1090, 1098.)

“In reviewing discretionary motions, we will affirm the trial court's ruling if any evidence supports the trial court's decision or if there is any rational basis for the trial court's action.” (See Fry v. Schroder (2013) 986 N.E.2d 821, 823.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Stay Discovery

It is well settled that “an order granting a motion to stay proceedings is not appealable as a matter of right.” (See Witherspoon v. Brown, Court of Appeals No. 45A04-1608-SC-1816, at *1 (Ind. App. Mar. 17, 2017).)

It is also well settled that “a stay of proceedings is a matter of convenience and practice, and is not a matter of right, but is granted or refused in the exercise of the sound discretion of the court.” (See State ex rel. Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Comm. v. Lake Superior Court No. 4 (1972) 259 Ind. 123, 128.)