Brooks v. sanofi-aventis U.S. LLC et al

Filing 45

ORDER denying 36 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Judge Gregory L. Frost on 6/15/15. (kn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DOMINIQUE BROOKS aka
DOMINIQUE REIGHARD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:14-cv-976
JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST
Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp

SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendants’ motion to stay discovery
(ECF No. 36), Plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition (ECF No. 39), Defendants’ reply
memorandum (ECF No. 40), and Plaintiff’s amended memorandum in opposition (ECF No. 42).
Defendants ask the Court to stay all discovery until the Court issues a decision on Defendants’
pending motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff opposes such a stay, arguing that discovery is
needed to respond to the motion for summary judgment. Defendants counter that “Plaintiff has
certainly had every opportunity to conduct sufficient discovery to respond to Defendants’
dispositive motion.” (ECF No. 40, at Page ID # 563.) The briefing paints two notably different
pictures of how discovery has proceeded to date. Regardless of which depiction is correct, the
Court finds insufficient cause for staying discovery during the pendency of the summary
judgment motion. This Court therefore DENIES the motion to stay discovery. (ECF No. 36.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gregory L. Frost
GREGORY L. FROST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE