Sorge v. Calvary Portfolio Services, LLC et al

Filing 29

ORDER granting 27 Motion to Stay Discovery Pending the Determination of Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings. Accordingly, ALL DISCOVERY in this action is hereby STAYED until the pending MOTION to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 11 ) is resolved. See attached Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams on 8/30/2011. (ehb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TINA SORGE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CALVARY PORTFOLIO SERVICES,
LLC, CALVARY SPVI, LLC, and LAW
OFFICE OF KEITH S. SHINDLER,
LTD.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11−cv−0297−DRH−SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge:
On April 13, 2011, Plaintiff Tina Sorge (“Ms. Sorge”) filed her Complaint alleging violations
of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”). 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. Now before the
Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery Pending the Determination of Defendants’ Motion
to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings (Doc. 27). Upon further consideration, and after
consulting with District Judge Herndon, Defendants’ motion is hereby GRANTED.
A court possesses inherent power “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket
with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel and for litigants. How this can best be done
calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even
balance.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936) (citations omitted). Incidental to
this power is the discretion to stay proceedings. Id. at 254. Moreover, in general, courts enjoy very
broad discretion in controlling discovery, including limiting its scope, timeframe and sequence. See
Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 681
(7th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and (d).

Here, the balance of factors weighs in favor of staying discovery pending the resolution of
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration. First, this case is still relatively new and the current
discovery deadline is not until February 5, 2012. Accordingly, Ms. Sorge will not be unduly
prejudiced by a short delay in the initiation of discovery. Second, as Defendants note, because the
rules governing discovery in arbitration proceedings differ significantly from the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, if their Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted much, if not all, of the discovery in
this case would be superfluous; an unnecessary burden and expense.
In light of the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 27) pending the
District Court’s resolution of their Motion to Compel Arbitration is hereby GRANTED.
Accordingly, all discovery in this matter is hereby STAYED until the Motion to Compel Arbitration
(Doc. 11) is resolved. If the Motion to Compel Arbitration is denied, then Defendants SHALL file
their responses to Ms. Sorge’s discovery requests within fourteen (14) days of the District Court’s
Order being filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED August 30, 2011.
/s/ Stephen C. Williams
STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2