Stand Up America Now et al v. Dearborn, City of et al

Filing 25

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery 20 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
STAND UP AMERICA NOW,
WAYNE SAPP and TERRY JONES,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 12-11471
Honorable Denise Page Hood

v.
CITY OF DEARBORN and RONALD
HADDAD,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Discovery pending the resolution of their Motion for
Summary Judgment, which has yet to be filed, addressing Plaintiff’s facial challenge alleged in their
First Amended Complaint as to the ordinance at issue. Plaintiffs respond that they are not only
challenging the ordinance on its face, but are also challenging the ordinance “as applied”, which
requires discovery as to how Defendants applied the ordinance. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants
agreed to conduct discovery pursuant to the scheduling conference and order set forth by the Court.
(Doc. #15, May 15, 2012 Sched. Order) It is noted that this conference was held prior to the filing
of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint on July 25, 2012.
Given that Defendants have yet to file their summary judgment motion, there is nothing
before the Court that sets forth Defendants’ arguments and whether their arguments establish
discovery is not required. It is noted that Defendants could have filed a Motion to Dismiss, a Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings or even a Motion for Summary Judgment in lieu of filing an Answer
to challenge Plaintiffs’ initial Complaint or the First Amended Complaint based on Defendants’

argument that Plaintiffs are only asserting a facial challenge to the ordinance. (See, Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(May be made before filing an Answer) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b)(May be filed at any time)).
By its nature, a Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment generally requires discovery since the
motion is based on “facts” and the Court’s finding of “no genuine dispute as to any material fact.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Plaintiffs assert they require discovery as to the City of Dearborn’s policy and
custom regarding the ordinance and its application. The parties agree to extend the discovery
deadline. An amended scheduling order will be entered.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Stay Discovery pending a ruling on a motion for
summary judgment which has yet to be filed (Doc. No. 20, filed 9/14/2012) is DENIED without
prejudice.
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: October 26, 2012
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
October 26, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

2