Courtright v. O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc.

Filing 111

ORDER Concerning Settlement Status, Denying Request to Vacate or Stay Deadlines. Signed on November 8, 2016, by Chief District Judge Greg Kays. (Law clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
REBECCA COURTRIGHT and
RAPHEAEL SAYE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others,
Plaintiffs,
v.
O’REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-00334-CV-W-DGK
Consolidated with: 15-00134-CV-W-DGK

ORDER CONCERNING STATUS OF SETTLEMENT, DENYING REQUEST TO
VACATE OR STAY ANY DEADLINES
On September 19, 2016, the parties sent the Court’s courtroom deputy an email stating
that they had reached “an agreement to resolve the case through settlement.” The parties also
requested that the Court “adjourn all pending deadlines in light of the parties’ agreement, so that
counsel can work together to bring the matter to a close.” The parties never filed a formal
motion to stay discovery, nor did they file anything indicating that they had actually reached a
firm settlement. Consequently, on October 21, 2016, the Court ordered the parties to file either
the appropriate settlement documents or a joint report explaining the status of the case by
October 28, 2016.
On October 28, 2016, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement (Doc. 109) and a Joint
Report on Case Status (Doc. 110) in which they reported that they had reached a nationwide
settlement the day before, on October 27. The parties also requested that the Court vacate or
continue all currently scheduled deadlines 1 and give them until December 7, 2016, to file their
motion for settlement approval.

1

The parties also reported that the status of document production in this case was the same “as it was at the time of
Defendants’ last status report,” which was July 12, 2016. See Defendants’ Ninth Progress Report on Supplemental

Given that this case is almost three years-old, little substantive work has occurred, and
the case has already been stayed several times, the Court DENIES the parties’ request to stay
discovery and/or vacate or continue any deadlines.
Of course, the Court will endeavor to rule on the proposed settlement as soon as practical
once it is filed, but the parties shall continue actively litigating the case until the Court orders
otherwise.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: November 8, 2016

/s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Discovery (Doc. 100). Defendants also explained that they “ceased expending on continuing discovery once
agreement on settlement was reached [which appears to have been October 27, 2016], and Defendants have since
directed their efforts toward memorializing the settlement in coordination with Plaintiffs’ counsel.” Thus, it appears
Defendants have not produced any documents since mid-July, meaning there has been no progress on discovery for
three months in a case that is already thirty months-old.

2