Apace Communications, Ltd. et al v. Burke et al

Filing 184

ORDER granting 180 plaintiff's Motion to Stay the briefing and argument of the Levines' summary judgment motion 168 . Once the discovery schedule has been concluded, this Court will revisit the briefing and schedule argument, if necessary, of the Levine cross-motion for summary judgment. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 12/14/11. (EMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________________
APACE COMMUNICATIONS, LTD.,

Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
07-CV-6151L
v.
JEFFREY BURKE, et al.,

Defendants.
________________________________________________
Defendants, Lori Levine and Steven Levine, have moved for summary judgment (Dkt. #168).
This Court set a schedule for responding to the motion (Dkt. #169).
Now, plaintiff moves (Dkt. #180) to stay briefing and arguing on the summary judgment
motion pending completion of fact discovery. Counsel for the Levines submitted a letter, dated
December 3, 2011 (Dkt. #183) opposing the request.
I hereby GRANT the motion to stay (Dkt. #180) the briefing and argument of the Levines’
summary judgment motion (Dkt. #168).
Because of plaintiff’s counsel’s medical issues and other matters, familiarity with which is
presumed by the parties, Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson granted plaintiff’s request for an
extension of fact discovery into February 2012. The Magistrate Judge gave certain directives relative
to obtaining alternative counsel and selecting dates for depositions but, as of the date of this order,
the parties continue to be embroiled in those matters and there appears to have been little progress
made by counsel to orchestrate the scheduling and timing of the discovery permitted by Magistrate
Judge Payson.

Although it may be that this discovery sheds little light on the issues raised by the Levines’
summary judgment motion, it would be imprudent for this Court now to forge ahead in light of the
Magistrate Judge’s determination that some modest extension of discovery was warranted. Once
the discovery schedule has been concluded, this Court will revisit the briefing and schedule
argument, if necessary, of the Levine cross-motion for summary judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________________________________
DAVID G. LARIMER
United States District Judge
Dated: Rochester, New York
December 14, 2011.

-2-