Gray et al v. McKann et al

Filing 83

ORDER denying as moot 52 Defendants' Motion to Compel. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 80 Plaintiff's request to stay discovery is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 10/26/2011. (jct)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
RUBBY JAMES GRAY, ADC #500127, and
PAUL BASHFORD
v.

PLAINTIFFS

3:11-cv-00061-JMM-JTK

JACK MCKANN, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 52). Plaintiff filed
a Response to the Motion, which includes a request to stay discovery (Doc. No. 80), and Defendants
filed a Reply (Doc. No. 81).
In their Reply, Defendants indicate that since Plaintiff has now provided to them an executed
medical authorization, there are currently no outstanding discovery responses due from the Plaintiff.
Therefore, Defendants’ Motion is now moot.
However, Plaintiff asks in his Response to stay any future discovery until he is released from
prison in December and can obtain a private attorney. Defendants state they do not object to a stay of
this case or dismissal of this case, but do object to staying discovery.
Plaintiff provides no specific reason for staying any further discovery in this matter, other than
that he wishes to obtain a private attorney to assist him. At this point in the litigation, Plaintiff has
adequately represented himself pro se, and the Court finds no legitimate or compelling reason to stay
discovery at this time. If Plaintiff does obtain an attorney at a later date, his attorney can petition the
Court to extend the discovery deadline, if necessary. Accordingly,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 52) is DENIED

1

as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to stay discovery (Doc. No. 80) is DENIED
without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of October, 2011.

_______________________________
JEROME T. KEARNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2