Garecht v. Professional Transportation, Inc. et al

Filing 40

ORDER GRANTING 38 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 6/19/15. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOHN GARECHT, individually, and on behalf)
of all similarly situated persons who were)
employed by defendants at terminals in the)
)
State of Illinois,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
PROFESSIONAL
TRANSPORTATION,)
)
INC.,
)
)
Defendant.

Case No. 3:14-cv378-SMY-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court is the Agreed Motion to Stay Discovery filed by Defendant,
Professional Transportation, Inc., on May 27, 2015 (Doc. 38). The Motion is GRANTED.
The parties argue that, in light of the pending motions to dismiss, a stay of discovery would
be a cost effective measure for both parties. This Court enjoys broad discretion in directing the
course of discovery. See FED.R.CIV.P. 26; James v. Hyatt Regency Chicago, 707 F.3d 775, 784
(7th Cir. 2013).

Generally, the filing of a motion to dismiss does not automatically stay

discovery. See SK Hand Tool Corp. v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 852 F.2d 936, 945 (7th Cir.
1988); Daniel J. Hartwig Associates, Inc. v. Kanner, 913 F.2d 1213, 1223 (7th Cir. 1990).
Discovery can be stayed, however, if certain threshold or jurisdictional issues could be efficiently
resolved prior to expensive discovery. See Todd by Todd v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
942 F.2d 1173, 1178 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Limiting discovery to a threshold issue is proper in a case
that may be resolved upon summary judgment”); Landstrom v. Illinois Dept. of Children and
Family Services, 892 F.2d 670, 674 (7th Cir 1990) (approving a stay in discovery pending a ruling
Page 1 of 2

on qualified immunity).
In this matter, a stay of discovery will be cost effective. However, the parties are
informed that, after a ruling on the motion to dismiss, discovery in this matter may be expedited in
order to conform to the December 7, 2015 trial date. The parties shall file a motion to amend the
schedule in this matter, after conferring, within seven (7) days of the District Court’s ruling, if
necessary.

Discovery in this matter is accordingly STAYED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 19, 2015

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2