B& F System, Inc. v. LeBlanc et al

Filing 135

ORDER denying 133 Motion to Stay; denying 134 Motion to Stay. Response deadline is 9/7/2010; Reply deadline is 9/21/2010. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 8/17/2010. (nbp)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA V A L D O S T A DIVISION T H E B & F SYSTEM, INC., P la in tiff, v. L L O Y D J. LEBLANC JR., MAXAM W H O L E S A L E OF ATLANTA, INC., D IR E C T SOURCE IMPORTS, INC. J E F F LEBLANC, LLOYD LEBLANC III, P R O D U C T O S MEXICANOS DON J O S E , INC., LEBLANC'S, LLC, and E D N A G. LEBLANC, D e fe n d a n ts . ________________________________ ORDER B e fo re the Court are Defendant Direct Source Imports, Inc.'s Request That M o tio n for Protective Order Remain Stayed (Doc. 133) and Defendant Edna G. L e B la n c 's Request That Her Motion to Compel Remain Stayed (Doc. 134). O n July 7, 2010, Defendant Direct Source Imports, Inc. filed a Motion for P ro te c tiv e Order regarding certain subpoenas issued by Plaintiff. Also on July 7, 2 0 1 0 , Defendant Edna G. LeBlanc filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff to respond more fu lly to certain discovery requests. Counsel for Plaintiff contacted the Court and stated that the parties were a tte m p tin g to work out the discovery matters involved in the Motion for Protective O rd e r and Motion to Compel. In light of that representation, on July 23, 2010 the : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : C iv il Action No. 7:07-CV-192 (HL) Court entered an order (Doc. 128) stating that the standard deadlines for responding a n d replying to the two Motions were suspended, but would not be indefinitely s ta y e d . The parties were instructed to notify the Court no later than August 16, 2010 a s to the status of the Motions, along with any other outstanding discovery issues, s o the response and reply deadlines could be reset. Notwithstanding the Court's statement that the Motions would not be in d e fin ite ly stayed, the movants have now requested that the stay remain in place. T h e only status provided to the Court is that counsel are attempting to resolve d is c o v e ry issues without court intervention at this time. While the Court recognizes that this is a complicated case, it is also one that h a s been pending for almost three years. The Motions to Stay (Docs. 133 and 134) a re denied. Responses to the Motions are due no later than September 7, 2010. M o v a n ts ' replies are due no later than September 21, 2010. Of course, the movants c a n always withdraw their Motions, which can be filed again if necessary. S O ORDERED, this 17th day of August, 2010. s / Hugh Lawson HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE m bh

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?