Alig-Mielcarek v. Jackson et al

Filing 107

ORDER granting in part 97 Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery; granting Defendants' 100 Motion to Vacate Settlement Week Conference; granting Defendants' 103 Motion for Leave to Supplement Motion to Vacate Settlement Week Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 9/4/2012. (er1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JANA M ALIG MIELCAREK, Ph.D.,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:11-cv-00255
Judge Edmund A. Sargus
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

v.

DERRELL L JACKSON, Ed.D., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendants’ Motion to Stay
Discovery Until the Court Rules on the Pending Motion to Dismiss filed August 7, 2012. (ECF
No. 97.) On August 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed her opposition to Defendants’ Motion. (ECF No.
105.) Also before the Court for consideration is Defendants’ Motion to Vacate the Settlement
Week Conference filed August 14, 2012. (ECF No. 100.) Plaintiff filed her opposition to
Defendants’ Motion on August 15, 2012. (ECF No. 101.) Defendants replied on August 23,
2012. (ECF No. 102.) The Court also considers Defendants’ recently filed Motion for Leave to
Supplement Motion to Vacate Settlement Week Conference. (ECF No. 103.) For the reasons set
forth below, Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery is GRANTED IN PART as set forth herein.
Defendants’ Motion for Leave is GRANTED. Defendants’ Motion to Vacate Settlement Week
Conference is GRANTED.
Defendants ask this Court to enter an order staying all discovery until the Court rules on
Defendants’ pending Motions to Dismiss. (ECF Nos. 36, 37, and 38.) In the alternative,
Defendants ask this Court to enter an order directing that participation in discovery will not

waive their jurisdiction and venue defenses raised in their Motions to Dismiss. Defendants
appear primarily concerned that participation in discovery will waive certain defenses raised in
their Motions to Dismiss. Defendants also argue that the burden of proceeding with discovery
prior to the Court ruling on their Motions to Dismiss outweighs any hardship on Plaintiff that
might result from a delay of discovery.
Plaintiff initiated this action well over a year and a half ago. This Court ordinarily will
not stay discovery because of a pending motion to dismiss. See Bowens v. Columbus Metro.
Library Bd. of Trustees, 10-00219, 2010 WL 3719245, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 16, 2010) (citing
Ohio Bell Tel. Co., Inc. v. Global NAPs Ohio, Inc., 06-0549, 2008 WL 641252 (S.D. Ohio Mar.
4, 2008)). Further, even if the Court rules in Defendants’ favor on their Motion to Transfer
Venue, discovery will have to be conducted in the new venue in any event. The burden of
staying discovery thus outweighs its benefit. Accordingly, Defendants’ request for a stay will
not be granted.
Defendants also ask this Court to vacate the September 11, 2012 Settlement Week
Conference. Defendants argue that settlement negotiations at this stage will be fruitless because
of their pending Motions to Dismiss, and because they have not conducted discovery up to this
point for fear of waiving their jurisdictional defenses. Plaintiff argues that she is in a position to
meaningfully discuss settlement, and that Defendants have refused to engage in good-faith
settlement discussions throughout the pendency of this case.
Because the Defendants will only now begin to participate in meaningful discovery and
the effect discovery will have on the parties’ positions on settlement, Defendants’ Motion to
Vacate Settlement Week Conference is GRANTED. The September 11, 2012 Settlement Week
Conference is hereby VACATED. The Court notes, however, that Plaintiff has made a
2

settlement demand in this case. The Court encourages the parties to participate in extrajudicial
negotiations to resolve this case even though it has vacated the settlement conference.
Moreover, the Court will reset this case for the December 2012 Settlement Week Conference.
This will afford Defendants sufficient time to engage in meaningful discovery and prepare for
settlement negotiations.
The Court, however, recognizes Defendants’ concern that participating in the discovery
process could somehow jeopardize their personal jurisdiction defense. While the Court is not
convinced that engaging in fact discovery will waive their jurisdictional defense,1 in an
abundance of caution, the Court expressly concludes that Defendants will not waive or otherwise
impair thier jurisdictional and venue defenses by participating in discovery. This aspect of
Defendants’ Motion is, therefore, GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: September 4, 2012

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

1

See Pl.’s Mem. Opp’n, at pp. 3-4 (citing Brown v. Way, No. 10-13016, 2011 WL 3555631 (E.D.
Mich., Mar. 31, 2011), and Wilson v. Kuwahara Co., Ltd., 717 F. Supp. 525 (W.D. Mich., 1989)). (ECF
No. 105.)

3