Gilleland v. Oklahoma City City of

Filing 22

ORDER denying 12 Defendants Motion to Stay All Proceedings; granting 21 Defendants Unopposed Application for Extension of All Deadlines. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall have until February 10,2017, to respond to Plaintiffs opening discovery requests. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 1/30/17. (ml)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
KIMBERLY GILLELAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY,
a municipal corporation,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-16-808-D

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Stay All
Proceedings Pending Ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 12] and
Defendant’s Unopposed Application for Extension of All Deadlines [Doc. No. 21].
As indicated, Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s request for a stay [Doc. No. 14] but
agrees to a 60-day extension of all remaining deadlines.
The decision to grant or deny a motion to stay lies within the Court’s
discretion. Creative Consumer Concepts, Inc. v. Kreisler, 563 F.3d 1070, 1080
(10th Cir. 2009); see also Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254
(1936). “The court should use this power in its discretion to provide ‘economy of
time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’” Beltronics USA, Inc. v.
Midwest Inventory Distrib. LLC, 545 F. Supp. 2d 1188, 1189 (D. Kan. 2008)
(quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 254). In exercising its discretion, the Court “must

weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Beltronics, 545 F. Supp.
2d at 1189 (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). Thus, “[w]hen applying for a stay, a
party must show a clear case of hardship or inequity if even a fair possibility exists
that the stay would damage another party.” Creative Consumer Concepts, 563 F.3d
at 1080 (quoting Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co. v. America Online Inc., 206 F.3d 980,
987 (10th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted)). “The Tenth Circuit has
stated that ‘[t]he right to proceed in court should not be denied except under the
most extreme circumstances.’ ... [Hence,] [t]he court must stay within the ‘bounds
of moderation’ when granting a stay.” Beltronics, 545 F. Supp. 2d at 1189
(citations omitted).
In assessing the propriety of a stay, the Court is to consider: (1) whether the
defendant is likely to prevail in the related proceeding; (2) whether, absent a stay,
the defendant will suffer irreparable harm; (3) whether the issuance of a stay will
cause substantial harm to the other parties to the proceeding; and (4) the public
interests at stake. United Steelworkers of America v. Oregon Steel Mills, Inc., 322
F.3d 1222, 1227 (10th Cir. 2003) (citing Battle v. Anderson, 564 F.2d 388, 397
(10th Cir. 1977)).
Upon careful consideration of the parties’ submissions and respective
arguments, the Court finds that a stay is not warranted. Defendant has not
sufficiently shown it is likely to prevail on its motion to dismiss or that it would be
2

irreparably harmed if this case were to proceed. Defendant cites the purported
burden of responding to Plaintiff’s discovery requests; however, nearly all courts
have concluded that incurring litigation expenses does not alone amount to
irreparable harm. See, e.g., Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, 115 F. Supp. 3d 1024,
1032-33 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (noting that “the money and time a party must expend
during the litigation process, while burdensome, does not alone constitute
irreparable injury[.]”) (citation and internal paraphrasing omitted). Since
Defendant has failed to sufficiently establish likelihood of prevailing on the merits
or irreparable harm, the Court declines to address the remaining factors in deciding
whether to grant a stay.
Alternatively, the parties have agreed to a 60-day extension of all remaining
deadlines and the Court grants their request. All deadlines in the Court’s
Scheduling Order [Doc. No. 9] are hereby extended as follows:
a.

Defendant’s final list of expert witnesses to be filed March 21, 2017.

b.

Plaintiff’s final list of witnesses to be filed March 21, 2017.

c.

Defendant’s final list of witnesses to be filed April 4, 2017.

d.

Plaintiff’s final list of exhibits to be filed March 21, 2017.

e.

Defendant’s final list of exhibits to be filed April 4, 2017.

f.

Discovery to be completed by May 5, 2017.

g.

All dispositive and Daubert motions to be filed by April 7, 2017.
3

h.

Jury trial docket - July 11, 2017.

i.

Designations of deposition testimony to be used at trial to be
submitted by May 20, 2017 and any counter designations submitted
by May 27, 2017.

j.

Motions in limine to be filed by May 20, 2017.

k.

Requested voir dire to be filed by May 20, 2017.

l.

Trial briefs to be filed by May 20, 2017.

m.

Requested jury instructions to be filed by May 20, 2017.

n.

Any objections or responses to the trial submissions referenced above
to be filed by June 3, 2017.

o.

Final Pretrial Report to be submitted by May 20, 2017.

All other provisions of the Scheduling Order shall remain in effect.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Stay All Proceedings [Doc. No. 12] is
DENIED, and Defendant’s Unopposed Application for Extension of All Deadlines
[Doc. No. 21] is GRANTED as set forth herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall have until February 10,
2017, to respond to Plaintiff’s opening discovery requests.1

1

In its brief, Defendant states that such responses were due on January 3, 2017. In
her response brief, Plaintiff asserts she would be agreeable to a short extension of
time.
4

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of January, 2017.

5