Kwasniewski et al v. sanofi-aventis U.S., LLC et al

Filing 223

ORDER that 215 Motion to Stay or in the Alternative, Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Dates is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 7/31/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
JENNIFER KWASNIEWSKI, et al.,
8
9
10
11
12

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-00515-GMN-CWH
ORDER

13

Presently before the court is Plaintiff Jennifer Kwasniewski’s Motion to Stay or in the

14

Alternative, Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Dates (ECF No. 215), filed on July 10, 2017.

15

Defendant Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC filed a response (ECF No. 221) on July 24, 2017. Plaintiff

16

filed a reply (ECF No. 222) on July 24, 2017.

17

Plaintiff seeks a stay of all proceedings, citing impending discovery deadlines and the lack

18

of any response from Defendant. Plaintiff argues that she should not be compelled to engage in

19

expert discovery or forgo the opportunity to amend her pleadings until after Defendant files an

20

answer, so a stay is necessary. Plaintiff requests a extension of discovery deadlines in the

21

alternative. Defendant does not take a position on the motion, but indicates it is willing to consider

22

an extension of discovery.

23

District courts have broad discretion to control their own dockets. M.M. v. Lafayette School

24

Dist., 681 F.3d 1082, 1091 (9th Cir. 2012). In considering whether to stay proceedings, the court

25

must weigh competing interests such as possible damages that may result, the hardship or inequity

26

which may be suffered if the parties are required to move forward, and the orderly course of justice.

27

CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). Here, Plaintiff has not shown good cause

28

for a stay at this time, citing only the approaching discovery deadlines in support of her request. It
is not clear why an indefinite stay of all deadlines and proceedings would be necessary when the

1

only object of such a stay would be to avoid expiration of certain discovery deadlines. The Court

2

will deny Plaintiff’s motion, but will entertain a further motion or stipulation to extend discovery.

3
4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay or in the Alternative,
Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Dates (ECF No. 215) is DENIED without prejudice.

5
6

DATED: July 31, 2017

7
8

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2