Blair et al v. City Of Hannibal, Missouri et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant City of Hannibal's Motion for Temporary Stay of Discovery [ECF No. 43 ] is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 6/8/16. (EAB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
JACOB BLAIR, et al.,
CITY OF HANNIBAL, et al.,
Case No. 2:15CV00061 ERW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant City of Hannibal’s Motion for Temporary
Stay of Discovery [ECF No. 43]. Defendant City of Hannibal (“Hannibal”) requests the Court
temporarily stay discovery pending resolution of its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
currently before the Court. Plaintiffs oppose a stay of discovery asserting their second amended
complaint resolves any issues raised in the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, discovery will
not unduly burden Hannibal, and a temporary stay will unfairly prejudice Plaintiffs because any
discovery will necessarily impact the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
The Court will grant a temporary stay of discovery until the Court has ruled on
Hannibal’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or if some other circumstance arises which
requires the lifting of the stay. When determining whether to grant a stay district courts consider
the merits of the pending dispositive motion, and the breadth of pending discovery, and balance
the harm of delaying discovery against the possibility the entire matter will be resolved by the
motion. TE Connectivity Networks, Inc. v. All Systems Broadband, Inc., No. 13-1356 ADM/FLN,
2013 WL 4487505 at *2 (D. Minn. Aug. 20, 2013) (citing numerous district courts). The Court
has considered the burden of discovery to Hannibal and the potential prejudice to Plaintiffs in
granting a stay. Although Plaintiffs repeatedly refer to a second amended complaint in their
filings with the Court, no such complaint has been filed nor has leave to file such complaint been
sought. Plaintiffs’ assertion discovery will impact the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is
erroneous as a motion for judgment on the pleadings is decided based on the allegations included
in the pleadings and any documents necessarily embraced by the pleadings. See State ex rel.
Nixon v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe, 164 F.3d 1102, 1107 (8th Cir. 1999); Porous Media Corp. v. Pall
Corp., 186 F.3d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999). Further, the pending Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings raises many of the same arguments raised by Defendant Redflex Traffic Systems,
Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which the Court granted. Lastly, this matter has
been filed as a class action which will require more extensive discovery. These considerations all
weigh in favor of granting a temporary stay.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant City of Hannibal’s Motion for Temporary
Stay of Discovery [ECF No. 43] is GRANTED.
So Ordered this 8th day of June, 2016.
E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?