Piwinski v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A et al

Filing 20

ORDER granting 16 Motion to Continue to Stay Discovery pending resolution of the 5 & 6 Motions to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 4/20/2011. (kjm1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

N. ANN PIWINSKI,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:10-cv-01087
Judge George C. Smith
Magistrate Judge E. A. Preston Deavers

vs.

WELLS FARGO BANK NA, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendants’ Motion to Continue to
Stay Discovery (ECF No. 16). On March 10, 2011, following the Preliminary Pretrial
Conference, the Court stayed discovery in this case pending further briefing. On March 24,
2011, Defendants filed their Motion to Continue to Stay Discovery. Defendants maintain that
the Court should stay discovery until it has resolved Defendants’ pending Motions to Dismiss
(ECF Nos. 5, 6). Defendants assert that a stay is justified in part because they assert immunity
defenses in their Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants’ Motion to
Continue to Stay Discovery.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “permit[] a district court to issue a protective order
staying discovery during the pendency of a motion for ‘good cause shown.’ ” Bowens v.
Columbus Metro. Library Bd. of Trs., No. 2:10-cv-00219, 2010 WL 3719245, at *1 (S.D. Ohio
Sept. 16, 2010) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)). This Court has broad discretion in determining
whether to “stay discovery until preliminary questions which may dispose of the case are

answered.” Bangas v. Potter, 145 F. App’x 139, 141 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Hahn v. Star Bank,
190 F.3d 708, 719 (6th Cir.1999)). Furthermore, this Court has noted that a stay of discovery
pending ruling on dispositive motions may be appropriate when the dispositive motion “raises an
issue such as immunity from suit . . . .” Williams v. New Day Farms, LLC, No. 2:10-cv-0394,
2010 WL 3522397, at *2 (Sept. 7, 2010).
Because Defendants raise an issue of immunity in their pending Motions to Dismiss, and
because Plaintiff has not responded in opposition to a stay, the Court finds that a stay of
discovery is appropriate in this case. Accordingly, discovery is STAYED in this case pending
resolution of Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. If these Motions do not dispose of the case, the
Court will set a status conference to address the pretrial case schedule.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: April 20, 2011

/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
United States Magistrate Judge

2