Central Facilities Operating Company, L.L.C. v. Cinemark U.S.A., Inc. et al

Filing 38

Ruling as to 32 Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines; 32 Motion to Stay. Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion is granted insofar as the plaintiff sought an extension of time until March 14, 2012 to serve its responses to defendant Cinemark USAs discovery requests. In all other respects, the plaintiffs motion is denied.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 2/3/2012. (LSM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CENTRAL FACILITIES OPERATING
COMPANY, L.L.C.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NUMBER 11-660-JJB-SCR

CINEMARK U.S.A., INC., ET AL
RULING ON MOTION TO STAY OR FOR OTHER RELIEF
Before the court is the Motion Filed by Plaintiff, Central
Facilities Operating Company, L.L.C., for a Stay of All Discovery
Until After Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand Has Been Decided, and
Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery Propounded
to

Plaintiff

by

Defendant,

Cinemark

USA,

Inc.,

and/or

Alternatively, Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to
Discovery Propounded to Plaintiff by Defendant, Cinemark USA, Inc.,
for an Additional Thirty (30) Days, or Through March 14, 2012.
Record document number 32.
After the court notified the parties the no ruling would be
issued

until either all defendants have filed a response to the

motion or the time for them to so has expired, which ever is
earlier,

the

plaintiff

filed

an

amended

motion.1

Defendant

Cinemark USA, Inc. filed a response to original motion.2
As the lengthy title of the plaintiff’s motion indicates, the

1

Record document number 36.

2

Record document number 37.

plaintiff seeks multiple or alternative forms of relief: (1) a stay
of all discover until the court rules on its pending motion to
remand;3 (2) an extension of time until 30 days after the court
rules on its motion to remand for it to serve its responses to
defendant Cinemark USA’s discovery requests; and, (3) an extension
of time for 30 days for it to serve its responses to defendant
Cinemark USA’s discovery requests, through March 14, 2012.
Plaintiff asserted in its amended motion that counsel for
defendant Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. advised that it concurs
with defendant Cinemark USA’s response to the motion.

Defendant

Cinemark USA agreed to the third form of relief sought by the
plaintiff: an extension of time until March 14 for it to serve its
responses to the defendant’s discovery requests.4

Therefore, this

aspect of the plaintiff’s motion will be granted.
Defendant Cinemark USA opposed the other two forms of relief
sought by the plaintiff.
relief is unpersuasive.
motion to remand.

Plaintiff’s argument in support of

that

The only basis for it is the pending

But the plaintiff did not assert that there

would be any material difference in its objections or substantive
discovery responses if they were made pursuant to state discovery
rules as compared to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Nor did
the plaintiff assert that the information and documents sought by

3

Record document number 30.

4

Id. at 1.
2

defendant Cinemark USA is clearly not relevant to the plaintiff’s
claims, or would not be discoverable if those claims were to
proceed in state court.
Although

staying

discovery

until

a

motion

to

remand

or

substantive motion is decided is sometimes warranted, the plaintiff
has

not

shown

that

doing

so

is

warranted

in

the

current

circumstances of this case.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion is granted insofar as the
plaintiff sought an extension of time until March 14, 2012 to serve
its responses to defendant Cinemark USA’s discovery requests.
all other respects, the plaintiff’s motion is denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, February 3, 2012.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

In