Bonner County v. Little et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. 19) re 31 Motion to Stay. The Defendants' Motion to Stay Briefing (Dkt. 31 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Ronald E. Bush. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (ckh)
Case 1:20-cv-00350-REB Document 32 Filed 11/19/20 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
BONNER COUNTY, an Idaho municipal
BRADLEY J. LITTLE, in his official
capacity as Governor of the State of Idaho;
COVID-19 FINANCIAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE; ALEX J. ADAMS, in his
official capacity as the Administrator of the
Division of Finance Management, and as
Chair of the COVID-19 Financial Advisory
Committee; TOM KEALEY, in his official
capacity as Director of the Idaho
Department of Commerce; BRANDON D.
WOOLF, in his official capacity as
Controller of the State of Idaho; JULIE A.
ELLSWORTH, in her official capacity as
Idaho State Treasurer,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00350-REB
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO STAY BRIEFING ON
PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The Court has considered Defendants’ Motion to Stay Briefing (Dkt. 31). The Court
does not need to hear from Plaintiff as to such motion, nor hear further from Defendants, as the
Court is sufficiently informed as to the issues and the facts. The Court has previously
accommodated requests from counsel for the Defendants for relief from briefing deadlines and
page requirements. Further, the Court will hear Defendant’s pending Motion to Dismiss before
hearing Plaintiff’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment. Moreover, Plaintiff has represented
to the Court that its claims potentially may be mooted if not decided before the end of the
calendar year; hence, the Court will need to hear argument upon Plaintiff’s motion earlier on in
MDO RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY BRIEFING – 1
Case 1:20-cv-00350-REB Document 32 Filed 11/19/20 Page 2 of 2
December 2020, if the Court decides that the Motion to Dismiss should be denied. Such a course
preserves the resources of the parties and the Court to the fullest extent possible, given the
particular nature of the facts, claims, and defenses raised in this case.
The Court is also aware that the COVID-19 pandemic has placed great stress upon
litigants and the Court. Where possible, the Court has loosened the constraints that its
management of the docket would ordinarily impose upon the parties to a lawsuit before the
Court. And, the Court has done so to some degree in this case. However, to grant the relief that
Defendants seek here would threaten the Court’s ability to address the merits of the case in the
time frame that Plaintiff has represented is necessary, should the Court allow the case to go
forward after deciding Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion to Stay Briefing (Dkt. 31) is DENIED.
DATED: November 19, 2020.
Honorable Ronald E. Bush
U. S. Magistrate Judge
MDO RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY BRIEFING – 2
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?