Renasant Bank, Inc. v. Smithgall et al
Filing
90
OPINION AND ORDER that Defendants Ray Simmons, Elaine Smithgall, and Jason Smithgall's Motion for Joinder to Motion to Stay 82 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Stay 80 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants' Motion is GRANTED, and discovery is stayed with respect to the Moving Defendants in their capacity as parties to this matter. Defendants' Motion is DENIED with respect to Defendants' request to stay preliminary deadlines, including initial disclosures, Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan, and Rule 26(f) conference. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 4/14/2016. (anc)
(“Motion for Joinder”).
I.
BACKGROUND
On February 19, 2016, the Moving Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss
[79]. The same day, Defendants filed their Motion to Stay. On February 26, 2016,
Defendants Ray Simmons, Elaine Smithgall, and Jason Smithgall filed their
Motion for Joinder.
In their Motion to Stay, Defendants seek a stay of:
[A]ll preliminary deadlines and obligations in this action—including,
without limitation, the deadlines to make initial disclosures, to
conduct an early planning conference pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(f) . . ., and to complete a Joint Preliminary Report
and Discovery Plan—pending a final disposition of the Motion to
Dismiss filed by the Moving Defendants herewith.
(Mot. to Stay at 2).
In support of their Motion to Stay, Defendants argue that, if the Court grants
the Moving Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the “landscape of this litigation and
the issues for discovery and discussion by the parties” will be “substantially
alter[ed].” (Reply [88] at 3). Plaintiff Renasant Bank, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) argues that
Defendants have not identified any “unanticipated or unforeseen circumstances
that require staying or extending any deadlines in this case.” (Resp. [84] at 2-3).
2
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard
A district court has the discretion, under Rule 26(d)(2) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, to grant a stay and alter the sequence of discovery “for the
parties’ and witnesses’ convenience and in the interests of justice.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(d)(2).
B.
Analysis
After consideration the parties’ arguments, the Court has determined that it
is in the interests of justice to stay discovery with respect to the Moving
Defendants in their capacity as parties to this matter.2 The Court denies
Defendants’ Motion to Stay preliminary deadlines, including initial disclosures,
Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan, and Rule 26(f) conference.3
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Ray Simmons, Elaine
2
Party discovery generally includes interrogatories (Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure (“Rule”) 33), Requests for Production (Rule 34), and Requests for
Admission (Rule 36). This stay does not preclude discovery that may be required
of non-parties.
3
Defendants Ray Simmons, Elaine Smithgall, and Jason Smithgall’s Motion
for Joinder to Motion to Stay is granted.
3
Smithgall, and Jason Smithgall’s Motion for Joinder to Motion to Stay [82] is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay [80] is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants’ Motion is
GRANTED, and discovery is stayed with respect to the Moving Defendants in
their capacity as parties to this matter. Defendants’ Motion is DENIED with
respect to Defendants’ request to stay preliminary deadlines, including initial
disclosures, Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan, and Rule 26(f)
conference.
SO ORDERED this 14th day of April, 2016.
_______________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?