*1 The above-referenced cause of action was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for pre-trial purposes in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. The following motion is before the Court:

The Court, having reviewed the relevant briefing, is of the opinion the motion to stay should be DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Ed Butowsky (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against National Public Radio, Inc. (“NPR”) and several current and former NPR employees following NPR’s reporting on a 2017 lawsuit filed by Fox News contributor Rod Wheeler against Fox News. See Complaint, Wheeler v. Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-05807 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2017) (“Wheeler Complaint”).[1] In his Complaint in this case (Docket Entry # 1), Plaintiff alleges four causes of action: (1) defamation per se (¶¶ 161-168); (2) business disparagement (¶¶ 169-174); (3) civil conspiracy (¶¶ 175-179); and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress (¶¶ 180-185). According to Plaintiff, he suffered “permanent harm to his name, reputation and business as a registered investment advisor because of a false and vile narrative published with actual malice by David Folkenflik and Douglas Wigdor, acting in concert.” Docket Entry # 41 at pg. 1. Plaintiff asserts this case is about collusion: that Folkenflik knew Plaintiff, a “Dallas investment manager,” was part of Wigdor’s “press strategy” and he willingly assumed the role of “firecracker” in the scheme to extort money from Fox News. Id. at pg. 5.

On October 16, 2018, the defendants filed separate motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). Docket Entry #s 23, 25. In response, Plaintiff dismissed all claims against Defendants Mohn, Foxwell, Oreskes, Turpin, Dellios, and Gilbert.[2] Plaintiff also dropped his claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the remaining Defendants David Folkenflik, NPR, Edith Chapin, Leslie Cook, and Pallavi Gogoi (collectively “Defendants”). The parties agreed to extend the briefing schedule on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Claim (Docket Entry # 25). Defendants’ reply brief was filed December 17, 2018. The motion is ripe for decision.

On November 8, 2018, District Judge Mazzant issued an Order Governing Proceedings, scheduling a Rule 16 management conference January 2, 2019. Docket Entry # 30. Judge Mazzant later found good cause to modify the deadlines in the Order Governing Proceedings. He reset the scheduling conference to January 17, 2019 and extended the parties’ deadline to exchange their initial disclosures and to file their joint report of attorney conference until January 14, 2019.[3] Docket Entry # 36.

*2 On December 11, 2018, Plaintiff served interrogatories and a request for production of documents on Defendant Folkenflik.[4] The following day, District Judge Mazzant referred the above case to the undersigned for pretrial purposes.

MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

In their current motion, Defendants request the Court modify requirements 7 and 9 for the joint report of attorney conference as outlined in the Court’s Order Governing Proceedings[5] and also stay all discovery in this action (including the January 14, 2019 deadline for the parties to exchange initial disclosures) pending the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants assert the requested stay would not prejudice Plaintiff, whereas “the harm that would result from requiring Defendants to submit burdensome discovery would be especially pernicious in this case due to the First Amendment interests implicated.” Docket Entry # 34 at pg. 4.

Defendants assert a stay is warranted based on the strength of their pending dispositive motion. Specifically, Defendants argue “the statutory fair report privilege, the statutory fair comment privilege, and the statutory third-party allegation rule squarely dispose of all remaining issues in this case.” Id. at pg. 6. Additionally, Defendants assert “there is a First Amendment interest in quickly and efficiently disposing of meritless defamation suits that require[ ] that media defendants not be subjected to costly, burdensome, and potentially unnecessary discovery in the early stages of litigation.” Id. at pg. 7.

Defendants state federal courts have granted stays of discovery during the pendency of a dispositive motion, recognizing the potential chilling effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights. Id. Defendants argue a stay is essential where, as here, Defendants’ initial disclosures and other anticipated discovery would require divulging highly sensitive and privileged information absent relief from the Court. Id. at pgs. 8-9. According to Defendants, the “initial disclosures alone would require that Defendants produce a list of their sources and provide additional sensitive and privileged information.” Id. at pg. 4. Defendants assert such “disclosure and discovery could compromise and chill NPR’s ability to report on this ongoing story,[ ] and would likely require additional (and premature) satellite litigation and motion practice regarding the applicability of reporter’s privilege laws and the scope of such disclosure and discovery.” Id. at pgs. 4-5.

*3 In response, Plaintiff asserts it is not the practice of federal courts to delay discovery based on pending motions to dismiss. Plaintiff further argues the First Amendment is not a shield that protects against defamation.

APPLICABLE LAW

District courts have inherent power to control their dockets and manage their cases, including by staying discovery. United States v. Infilaw Corp., No. 616CV970ORL37TBS, 2018 WL 889024, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2018). An order staying discovery should only be issued upon a showing of “good cause” by the movant. Griffin v. Am. Zurich Ins. Co., No. 3:14-cv-2470-P, 2015 WL 11019132, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 18, 2015); see FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c).

DISCUSSION

Under Local Rule CV-26 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, the presumption is that discovery shall proceed notwithstanding the filing of a motion to dismiss. Local Rule CV-26(a), titled “No excuses,” provides that “[a]bsent a court order to the contrary, a party is not excused from responding to discovery because there are pending motions to dismiss ....” In the Fifth Circuit, staying discovery while a motion to dismiss is pending “is the exception rather than the rule.” Griffin, 2015 WL 11019132, at *2. A motion to stay discovery is not “automatically granted whenever a motion to dismiss is pending.” Id. “Nor is a stay of discovery permitted merely because defendant believes it will prevail on its motion to dismiss.” Id. “[H]ad the Federal Rules contemplated that a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) would stay discovery, the Rules would contain a provision to that effect.” Valenzuela v. Crest-Mex Corp., No. 3:16-cv-1129-D, 2017 WL 2778104, at *5 (N.D. Tex. June 26, 2017). An order staying discovery should only be issued upon a showing of “good cause” by the movant. Griffin, 2015 WL 11019132, at *2; see FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c).

As noted above, there is no basis in the Federal or Local Rules for a Court to stay discovery pending a ruling on a motion to dismiss. In fact, Local Rule CV-26(a) indicates a party is not excused from responding to discovery because there are pending motions. Defendants in this instance have failed to show good cause to depart from the rule. Moreover, the Court intends to issue a Report and Recommendation on Defendants’ motion to dismiss as soon as practicable. To that end, the Court schedules Defendants’ motion to dismiss for hearing January 31, 2019.

Although the Court does not find good cause for a wholesale stay of all discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss, considering the undersigned has only recently been referred this case, the Court is entering, contemporaneously with this Order, an Amended Order Governing Proceedings which builds in some additional time.[6] Specifically, the Amended Order Governing Proceedings resets the January 17 scheduling conference before Judge Mazzant to a March 7, 2019 telephonic conference before the undersigned. The Amended Order Governing Proceedings also moves the initial disclosure deadline to February 19, 2019 and the deadline for the parties to file their joint report of attorney conference to March 1, 2019. This will allow time for the Court’s hearing and subsequent issuance of the Report and Recommendation on Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

*4 Regarding Plaintiff’s December 11, 2018 discovery requests served on Defendant Folkenflik, Defendant is granted an additional fourteen days in which to respond. Based on the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Pending Disposition of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry # 34) is hereby DENIED. It is further

ORDERED that a hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Claim (Docket Entry # 25) is hereby scheduled before Caroline M. Craven, United States Magistrate Judge, at 10:00 a.m on January 31, 2019 at the United States District Court, 500 N. Stateline, Fourth Floor Courtroom, Texarkana Texas. It is further

ORDERED that on or before January 24, 2019 Defendant Folkenflik shall respond to Plaintiff’s December 11, 2018 discovery requests.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 9th day of January, 2019.