Order Staying Discovery — Pietschner v. Kabbage (E.D. Tex.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division · No. 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ · Doc. 109 · 2026-03-19 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
SHERMAN DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  
ex rel. PAUL PIETSCHNER 
 
v. 
 
KATHRYN PETRALIA, ET AL. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
       
CIVIL NO. 4:21-CV-110-SDJ 
 
    
ORDER 
 
Before the Court is Defendants’ Joint Motion to Stay Discovery. (Dkt. #71). The 
United States opposes the motion. (Dkt. #74). Having considered the briefing and the 
applicable law, the Court concludes that the motion should be granted. 
A federal district court has “broad discretion and inherent power to stay 
discovery until preliminary questions that may dispose of the case are determined.” 
Fujita v. United States, 416 F.App’x 400, 402 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Petrus v. Bowen, 
833 F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir. 1987)). The court may, for example, stay discovery for 
“good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1). See id. Good cause may 
exist when “resolving a motion to dismiss might reduce or preclude the need for 
discovery or when ‘further discovery will impose undue burden or expense without 
aiding the resolution of the dispositive motions.’” James J. Flanagan Shipping 
Corp v. Port of Beaumont of Jefferson Cty., No. 1:20-CV-191, 2020 WL 4365595, at *1 
(E.D. Tex. July 29, 2020) (quoting Fujita, 416 F.App’x at 402); see, e.g., Handloser v. 
Infosys Limited, 4:20-CV-275-SDJ (Dkt. #59) (staying case pending a ruling on the 
motion to dismiss). But as courts in this circuit have often explained, a discovery stay 
is “the exception rather than the rule.” James J. Flanagan Shipping Corp., 2020 WL 
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ     Document 109     Filed 03/19/26     Page 1 of 3 PageID #:  1145

 
 
2 
4365595, at *1 (quoting Yeti Coolers, LLC v. Magnum Solace, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-663-
RP, 2016 WL 10571903, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2016)). 
The Court finds good cause to grant a stay. To begin, the Court notes that 
jurisdictional issues should be determined early in the case. See Ruhrgas AG v. 
Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 143 L.Ed.2d 760 (1999) 
(“Personal jurisdiction . . . is an essential element of the jurisdiction of a district court, 
without which the court is powerless to proceed to an adjudication.”) (cleaned up); see 
also Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506, 514, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1868) (“Without 
jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.”). Here, the question of 
personal jurisdiction over all three remaining defendants has been briefed and is ripe 
for determination without needing discovery. The Court thus finds good cause for a 
stay on these grounds alone.  
Further, Defendant Kathryn Petralia’s Motion to Dismiss the United States’ 
Complaint in Intervention, (Dkt. #65), Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss the 
United States’ Complaint in Intervention, (Dkt. #66), Defendant Spencer Robinson’s 
Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in Intervention for Improper Venue, Lack of 
Personal Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim, (Dkt. #67), and Defendant Robert 
Frohwein’s Motion to Dismiss the United States of America’s Complaint in 
Intervention, (Dkt. #68), provide substantial arguments for dismissal of many, if not 
all, of Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, staying discovery also is appropriate because 
the disposition of the motions to dismiss might preclude the need for discovery 
altogether.  
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ     Document 109     Filed 03/19/26     Page 2 of 3 PageID #:  1146

 
 
3 
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ Joint Motion to Stay Discovery, 
(Dkt. #71), is GRANTED.  
It is further ORDERED that this case is STAYED pending the Court’s 
resolution of Defendant Kathryn Petralia’s Motion to Dismiss the United States’ 
Complaint in Intervention, (Dkt. #65), Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss the 
United States’ Complaint in Intervention, (Dkt. #66), Defendant Spencer Robinson’s 
Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in Intervention for Improper Venue, Lack of 
Personal Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim, (Dkt. #67), and Defendant Robert 
Frohwein’s Motion to Dismiss the United States of America’s Complaint in 
Intervention, (Dkt. #68), or further order of the Court.  
It is further ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Amended 
Scheduling Order, (Dkt. #108), is DENIED as moot. The Court will issue an 
amended scheduling order, as necessary, once the stay is lifted. 
 
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ     Document 109     Filed 03/19/26     Page 3 of 3 PageID #:  1147
____________________________________ 
SEAN D. JORDAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 19th day of March, 2026.

File and source

File

CASE_TXED_4-21-cv-00110_US-Pietschner-v-Petralia-Kabbage_doc109_ORDER_2026-03-19.pdf

Size

673,628 bytes

SHA-256

cb6c94be345dbd6209dfae3eccc77cb1fd2afedc695eec6b01e23f6ac6b5b97f

Our copy

CASE_TXED_4-21-cv-00110_US-Pietschner-v-Petralia-Kabbage_doc109_ORDER_2026-03-19.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)