Schultheis et al v. Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation

Filing 55

ORDER denying 41 Motion to Stay. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 4/4/12. (klh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SHERRI SCHULTHEIS, DIANE REED,
and KATHERINE WHEELER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation and MARION
HOSPITAL CORPORATION, d/b/a HEARTLAND
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendants.

No. 11-0435-DRH

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
HERNDON, Chief Judge:
Now before the Court is Community Health System Inc.’s motion to stay
discovery pending ruling and motion to stay discovery in the event interlocutory
appeal relief obtains (Doc. 41). Specifically, Community Health System Inc. contends
that postponing discovery until either the motion to reconsider is decided or in the
event the Court grants certification for interlocutory appeal will conserve both judicial
and party resources. Plaintiffs oppose the motion (Doc. 46). Based on the following,
the Court denies the motion to stay discovery.
A movant does not have an absolute right to a stay. Instead, the movant bears
the burden of proof to show that the Court should exercise its discretion in staying
the case. Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler, LLC, — U.S.—, 129 S. Ct.
2275, 2277 (2009). District courts have extremely broad discretion in controlling

discovery. See Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); Patterson v. Avery
Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 681 (7th Cir. 2002). The Court has discretion under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 to limit the scope of discovery or to order that
discovery be conducted in a particular sequence.

Britton, supra. Limitation or

postponement of discovery may be appropriate when a defendant files a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, although the mere
filing of the motion does not automatically stay discovery. SK Hand Tool Corp. v.
Dresser Industries, Inc., 852 F.2d 936, 945 (7th Cir. 1988).
Here, the Court finds that Community Health Systems, Inc. has not met its
burden regarding a stay of discovery as the circumstances of the case do not warrant
a stay. The Court cannot presume that Community Health Systems, Inc.’s requests
will be granted or that interlocutory relief will be obtained. A stay only will delay the
litigation.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendants’ motion to stay discovery (Doc. 41).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 4th day of April, 2012

David R. Herndon
2012.04.04
12:49:47 -05'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court