Allstate Insurance Company v. Scarbrough

Filing 128

ORDER denying 121 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge S. Allan Alexander on 9/22/16. (bnd)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY v. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15cv114-MPM-SAA HILL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC., ET AL. DEFENDANTS ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY Defendant John Robert Scarbrough has moved to stay discovery pending rulings on multiple Motions to Dismiss filed by the parties. Docket # 121. Since the filing of the motion to stay, three of the motions to dismiss have been ruled on. The remaining motions to dismiss concern many of the same issues addressed by the September 15, 2016 Order denying the motions to dismiss. Scarbrough asserts that this case should be stayed simply because of the “sheer number of dispositive motions currently pending before the court, it would be in the best interest of all parties, and of justice, to have discovery stayed so as to avoid any unnecessary expense . . .” Docket 121, p. 3. Simply asserting that motions to dismiss are pending or have merit is insufficient to stay discovery. Certainly every defendant that files a motion to dismiss believes that there is at least some merit to his motion and would prefer not to have to defend litigation until he receives a ruling on the motion. However, that belief alone is insufficient to halt a case, particularly in this circumstance where the motion to stay was filed less than a month before the deadline for discovery, and at least one of the motions to dismiss had been pending for almost a year. The

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?