BR Arlington Borrower, LLC v. Cottage Builders, Inc, et al

Filing 26

ORDER granting 24 Joint Motion to Stay Discovery. Discovery is STAYED until resolution of the pending Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant. Within 14 days of a ruling by the District Judge on Defendant's pending Motion for Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 14), the Parties are to submit a joint status report, as instructed in the Scheduling Conference Order (R. Doc. 10), if any claims remain. Signed by Magistrate Judge Scott D. Johnson on 1/19/2023. (KAH)

Case 3:22-cv-00537-BAJ-SDJ

Document 26

01/19/23 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BR ARLINGTON BORROWER, LLC

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
NO. 22-537-BAJ-SDJ
COTTAGE BUILDERS, INC. n/k/a
CBI CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ORDER
Before the Court is a Joint Motion to Stay Discovery (R. Doc. 24) filed by the Parties on
October 28, 2022. In their Motion, the Parties seek a stay of discovery in this case until the Court
has issued a ruling on Defendant’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment.1
Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a 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 U.S. v. Garrett, 571 F.2d 1323, 1326 n.3 (5th Cir. 1978)). “Trial
courts possess broad discretion to supervise discovery.” Landry v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n Int’l AFLCIO, 901 F.2d 404, 436 n.114 (5th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). “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) (citations omitted).

1

R. Doc. 24 at 1.

Case 3:22-cv-00537-BAJ-SDJ

Document 26

01/19/23 Page 2 of 3

Here, as represented by the Parties in a December 1, 2022, conference with the Court,
resolution of the pending Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant may result in this
matter being dismissed in its entirety.2 Having reviewed the record, and taking into account the
representations of the Parties, the Court finds good cause to stay discovery in this matter. See Sapp
v. Mem’l Hermann Healthcare Sys., 406 F.App’x 866, 870 (5th Cir. 2010) (affirming stay of
discovery pending resolution of motion for summary judgment and noting that “where discovery
would not be useful to the resolution of a pending summary judgment motion presenting a question
of law, it is not an abuse of discretion to grant such a motion [to stay]” ); Lowell v. Ard, No. 17187, 2019 WL 1104169, at *2 (M.D. La. Mar. 8, 2019) (granting stay of expert discovery pending
resolution of motions for summary judgment); Fed. Ins. Co. v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., No. 03385, 2010 WL 1757932, at *3 (M.D. La. Apr. 30, 2010) (granting temporary stay of discovery
pending resolution of motion for summary judgment where summary judgment motion “could
potentially dispose of the entire case without the necessity of the [requested] discovery”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Discovery (R. Doc. 24) is
GRANTED, and discovery is STAYED until resolution of the pending Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by Defendant.

2

See R. Doc. 25.

Case 3:22-cv-00537-BAJ-SDJ

Document 26

01/19/23 Page 3 of 3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 14 days of a ruling by the District Judge on
Defendant’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 14), the Parties are to submit a joint
status report, as instructed in the Scheduling Conference Order (R. Doc. 10), if any claims remain.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on January 19, 2023.

S
SCOTT D. JOHNSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE