Pak v Unifund CCR Partners et al
Filing
22
ORDER granting 18 Motion to Stay Discovery: All discovery in this matter is STAYED pending the court's ruling on 11 Motion to Dismiss and 15 Motion to Sever. Following the court's disposition of the motions, the parties shall confer regarding a Rule 26(f) discovery plan within 21 days, and shall file a discovery plan within 15 days after the conference. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr on 6/17/2013. (Sawyer, D.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
No. 7:13-CV-70-BR
MINNAPAK,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, ZB LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, CREDIT CARD
RECEIVABLES FUND, INC., PORTFOLIO
RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, SESSOMS &
ROGERS, P.A., DONNA PRIMROSE BROWN,
and AMBER K. KAUFFMAN,
)
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
This matter comes before the court on Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery. [DE-18].
In the motion, Defendants request that all discovery be stayed pending resolution of Defendants'
motions to dismiss [DE-ll, -13] and motion to sever [DE-15]. Plaintiff does not object to
Defendants' motion. [DE-21].
Rule 26(c) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a court to issue an order
limiting or staying discovery. Specifically, a court has discretion to stay discovery until the
court's resolution of pending dispositive motions. See Yongo v. Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of
America, No. 5:07-CV-94-D, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14684, at *6, 2008 WL 516744, at *2
(E.D.N.C. Feb. 25, 2008); Tilley v. United States, 270 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (M.D.N.C. 2003). In
certain cases, a stay of discovery may be appropriate to prevent a waste of time and resources by
the parties and to make efficient use of judicial resources. See United States v. A. T Massey Coal
Co., No. 2:07-0299,2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77501, at *7, 2007 WL 3051449, at *2 (S.D. W.Va.
Oct. 18, 2007). "'Factors favoring issuance of a stay include the potential for the dispositive
motion to terminate all the claims in the case or all the claims against particular defendants,
strong support for the dispositive motion on the merits, and irrelevancy of the discovery at issue
to the dispositive motion."' Yongo, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14684, at *6, 2008 WL 516744, at *2
(quoting Tilley, 270 F. Supp. 2d at 735).
Here, Defendants have demonstrated good cause for their request to stay discovery.
Accordingly, (1) all discovery in this matter is STAYED pending the court's ruling on
Defendants' motions to dismiss [DE-11, -13] and motion to sever [DE-15]; (2) following the
court's disposition of all ofDefendants' motions [DE- 11,-13, -15], then the parties shall, within
twenty-one (21) days thereafter, confer regarding a Rule 26(f) discovery plan, and, within fifteen
( 15) days after the 26( f) conference, file a proposed discovery plan and exchange mandatory
initial disclosures.
So ordered, the 17th day of June, 2013.
United States Magistrate 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?