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)

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