Lynn v. Peabody Energy Corporation et al

Filing 91

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion to stay discovery pending the Courts ruling on Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 87 ) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Defendants motion to dismiss is den ied in whole or in part, the parties shall submit within 14 days thereafter a joint proposed scheduling plan, as described in the Courts Order dated December 17, 2015 (Doc. No. 59 ), for the continued litigation of this case. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 8/26/2016. (NEB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
LORI J. LYNN and JAVIER LYNN,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:15CV00916 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ joint proposed scheduling plan (Doc.
No. 86) filed on July 21, 2016, as well as Defendants’ motion (Doc. No. 87) to stay
discovery pending the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim.
“In deciding whether to grant a motion to stay discovery, courts may consider
prejudice to the nonmoving party, hardship and inequity to the moving party, and judicial
resources that would be saved by the stay.” In re: PRE-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust
Litig., 2015 WL 11111212, at *5 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 2, 2015). Upon review of the record,
Court finds that Defendants have presented valid reasons to stay discovery for a relatively
brief period of time, and do not rely on the mere fact that they filed a motion to dismiss
complaint. The Court accepts Defendants’ representation that proceeding with discovery
now in the present case will work a hardship on three of the individual Defendants who
currently involved in the Chapter 11 reorganization bankruptcy case of three former

Defendants herein (Peabody Energy Corporation, Peabody Holding Company, LLC, and
Peabody Investment Corp.). Further, a ruling on the motion to dismiss could impact the
scope of discovery. Conversely, Plaintiffs have not made a showing that a relatively brief
stay of discovery would result in any significant prejudice to them.
Defendants have up to and including September 6, 2016, to file a reply to Plaintiffs’
response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court notes that Defendants requested
oral argument on the motion to dismiss. The Court will grant that request by separate
Order and set a hearing for a date after the deadline for filing a reply.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending the
Court’s ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 87)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied in
whole or in part, the parties shall submit within 14 days thereafter a joint proposed
scheduling plan, as described in the Court’s Order dated December 17, 2015 (Doc. No.
59), for the continued litigation of this case.

_______________________________
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 26th day of August, 2016.

2