United States District Court, D. Maryland
EDWARD MICHAEL NERO, et al. Plaintiffs
MARILYN MOSBY, et al. Defendants
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: STAY PENDING APPEAL
J. Garbis United States District Judge
Court has before it the Motion for Immediate Stay Pending
Appeal [ECF No. 60] filed by Defendant Marilyn Mosby
(“Mosby”) and the materials submitted relating
thereto. The Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary.
Corrected Memorandum and Order Re: Dismissal Motions
[ECF No. 54], the Court dismissed certain of Plaintiffs'
claimsagainst Mosby and Defendant Samuel Cogen
(“Cogen”) but did not dismiss, leaving pending,
Plaintiffs' claims against them for
• Malicious prosecution,
• Invasion of privacy (false light), and
• Section 1983 Fourth Amendment
February 3, 2017, Mosby filed a Notice of [Interlocutory]
Appeal [ECF No. 57]. Cogen did not appeal.
instant motion, Mosby seeks to have the Court stay all
discovery pending resolution of her interlocutory appeal.
While Mosby apparently erroneously seeks to rely on Rule
62(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,  there is no doubt
that, under appropriate circumstances, a district court may
stay the effect of an order. See Landis v. N. Am.
Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)(“[T]he 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
the Court has discretion to stay discovery pending appeal by
staying the effect of its Order permitting the case to
proceed on those claims not dismissed. However, “a
party seeking a stay [of a district court order] must show:
(1) that [she] will likely prevail on the merits of the
(2) that [she] will suffer irreparable injury if the stay is