Lester v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections et al
ORDER granting defendant Osgood's 42 Motion to Stay discovery. The discovery and dispositive motion deadlines are Stayed pending resolution of defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 9/8/2017. (art)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-1065
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION, et al.,
This matter is before the Court on defendant Deann Osgood’s motion to stay discovery
pending the resolution of her motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. 42). Plaintiff has not
filed a response in opposition to the motion to stay. Because the motion to stay is unopposed,
and because the motion for judgment on the pleadings is based on plaintiff’s alleged failure to
comply with filing deadlines and administrative exhaustion requirements, the Court exercises its
discretion to stay discovery until the motion for judgment on the pleadings is resolved. See
Hahn v. Star Bank, 190 F.3d 708, 719 (6th Cir. 1999) (“Trial courts have broad discretion and
inherent power to stay discovery until preliminary questions that may dispose of the case are
It is therefore ORDERED that defendant’s motion to stay discovery (Doc. 42) is
GRANTED. The discovery and dispositive motion deadlines are STAYED pending resolution
of defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
s/Karen L. Litkovitz
Karen L. Litkovitz
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?