Vicknair v. Blumberg and Associates, Inc. et al

Filing 31

ORDER granting 29 Motion to Stay Discovery pending resolution of 10 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. All remaining deadlines are STAYED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 7/31/2017. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DENNY VICKNAIR

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
NO. 17-92-JWD-RLB
BLUMBERG AND ASSOCIATES,
INC., ET AL.
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Blumberg and Associates, Inc.’s (“Blumberg”) Motion to
Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 29) filed on June 28, 2017.
Blumberg moves for a stay of discovery until after resolution of its pending Motion to Dismiss
(R. Doc. 10) filed on March 9, 2017.
The Court’s Scheduling Order set all deadlines through the jury trial scheduled to
commence on September 12, 2018. (R. Doc. 28). Non-expert discovery must be completed by
October 20, 2017. (R. Doc. 28 at 1).
Rule 26(c) allows the Court to issue a protective order after a showing of good cause “to
protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Rule 26(c)’s “good cause” requirement indicates that the
party seeking a protective order has the burden “to show the necessity of its issuance, which
contemplates a particular and specific demonstration of fact as distinguished from stereotyped
and conclusory statements.” In re Terra Int'l, Inc., 134 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting
United States v. Garrett, 571 F.2d 1323, 1326 n. 3 (5th Cir. 1978)). “A trial court has broad
discretion and inherent power to stay discovery until preliminary questions that may dispose of
the case are determined.” Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Landry v.
Air Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l AFL-CIO, 901 F.2d 404, 436 n.114 (5th Cir. 1990) (“Trial courts
possess broad discretion to supervise discovery.”) (citation omitted).

Blumberg further asserts that its Motion to Dismiss addresses the purely legal issue of
preemption, and that further discovery is not necessary to resolve the motion. (R. Doc. 29 at 2).
Blumberg further asserts that since the filing of its Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff has propounded
written discovery requests, and that “discovery will be wasteful, burdensome, and for naught if
the motion to dismiss is granted.” (R. Doc. 29-2 at 2).
Plaintiff has filed a memorandum indicating that he has no opposition to a stay of
discovery, so long as all of the deadlines imposed by the Court’s Scheduling Order (R. Doc. 28)
are either stayed until after the Court rules on the pending motion to dismiss, or those deadlines
are otherwise set to new dates to be suggested by the parties. (R. Doc. 30).
In general, it is this Court’s practice to deny opposed motions to stay discovery pending
resolution of a dispositive motion. However, having considered the record as a whole, and given
the parties’ positions and with consent of the district judge, the Court finds good cause for
staying discovery, as well as staying all remaining deadlines in this action, until the district judge
issues a ruling on the pending motion to dismiss.
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery (R. Doc. 15) is
GRANTED. All remaining deadlines in this action are STAYED. Defense counsel shall
contact the undersigned’s chambers for the purpose of setting a scheduling conference, if
necessary, within 5 days of the issuance of a ruling on the pending motion to dismiss.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 31, 2017.

S

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2