GERBER v. THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
BRIAN GERBER, 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	: 	CASE NO.: 7:25-CV-182 (WLS)
:
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE 	:
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF 	:
GEORGIA, et al., 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
:
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery and Pre-Discovery
Proceedings (Doc. 23), filed on February 3, 2026. Therein, Defendants move the Court to stay
discovery pending the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 28).1 On February
11, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 29) in opposition to the Motion to Stay (Doc. 23).
A district Court has “broad discretion over the management of pre-trial activities,
including discovery and scheduling.” Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Ga., 263 F.3d 1234, 1269
(11th Cir. 2001) (citing Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1366 (11th Cir. 1997)).
To prevail on a motion to stay, the moving party must show good cause and reasonableness.
Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (citing Simpson v. Specialty Retail Concepts,
Inc., 121 F.R.D. 261, 263 (M.D.N.C. 1988)). When the moving party asks for a stay during the
pendency of a dispositive motion, 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.” Feldman, 176 F.R.D. at 652.
Based on the Court’s review of the Motion to Stay and preliminary review of the
Motion to Dismiss, the Court finds that a stay is warranted because there is a reasonable
1 The Court notes that after the filing of Defendants’ original Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17) and the instant
Motion to Stay, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 26), which became the operative pleading and
rendered Defendants’ first motion to dismiss moot. (See Doc. 30). Defendants filed a second Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 28), which the Court now considers in ruling on the Motion to Stay.
Case 7:25-cv-00182-WLS Document 32 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 2

2
potential that the Motion to Dismiss will resolve or narrow the issues, and as a result, improve
efficiency and reduce costs for all Parties.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Doc. 23) is GRANTED. All discovery in
the above-captioned action is hereby STAYED pending the Court’s ruling on the Motion to
Dismiss. Therefore, the initial discovery conference set for Wednesday, March 11, 2026, is
CANCELLED. The Court will, however, proceed with the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 13) and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint (Doc. 28) that is currently scheduled for Wednesday, March 11, 2026, at 2:00
P.M.
Additionally, Defendants filed a Motion for Clarification (Doc. 30) on February 13,
2026, seeking clarification regarding the issues to be presented at the March 11, 2026 hearing.
At the hearing, the Court will afford the Parties the opportunity to complete the Record by
presenting evidence and argument related to the factual and legal issues raised in the pending
Motions (Docs. 13 & 28). Specifically, the Court will hear arguments and receive any additional
evidence on the extent to which the availability and/or adequacy of state law remedies may
serve as a bar to Plaintiff’s procedural due process claim, and if so, the impact, if any, on his
remaining claims.
CONCLUSION
In sum, Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery and Pre-Discovery Proceedings
(Doc. 23) is GRANTED. All discovery in the above-captioned action is hereby STAYED.
The initial discovery conference set for Wednesday, March 11, 2026, is CANCELLED. The
hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 13) and Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 28) will proceed as originally scheduled on
Wednesday, March 11, 2026, at 2:00 P.M. at the C.B. King United States Courthouse.
Further, with the Court having set forth the issues to be presented at the hearing, Defendants’
Motion for Clarification (Doc. 30) is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED, this 20th day of February 2026.
/s/ W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 7:25-cv-00182-WLS Document 32 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 2