Ellis v. Morgan County Sheriff's Department et al (PLR2)

Filing 19

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 16 Motion to Stay Imposition of the Scheduling Order. The deadline for completing a Rule 26(f) conference, the deadline for submitting a discovery plan, and the deadline for making ini tial disclosures are STAYED pending disposition of the Motion to Dismiss. By staying the deadline for the Rule 26(f) conference and the deadline for submitting a discovery plan, the Court has effectively stayed discovery in this matter. Should the District Judge deny the Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 11 ], the stay is DEEMED LIFTED upon entry of the District Judges Memorandum Opinion and/or Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Clifford Shirley, Jr on May 27, 2014. (RLK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
SUE ANN ELLIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MORGAN COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:14-CV-140-PLR-CCS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02.
Now before the Court is a Motion to Stay Imposition of Scheduling Order [Doc. 16],
which was filed by the Defendants on May 2, 2014. In the Motion to Stay, the Defendants move
the Court to stay imposition of the deadlines contained in the Scheduling Order because the
Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss. In the Motion to Dismiss, Defendants argue that the
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she exhausted her administrative remedies prior to filing her
suit. Defendants maintain that Plaintiff’s suit must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based
upon her failure to exhaust these remedies.
The Motion to Stay was filed on May 2, 2014. The Plaintiff has not responded in
opposition to the Motion to Stay, and the time for doing so has expired. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.1.
The Court may treat this failure to respond as acquiescence to the relief sought. See E.D. Tenn.
7.2. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Motion to Stay could be granted based upon the
Plaintiff’s lack of opposition.

The Court also finds that the procedural posture of this case supports the Defendants’
request to stay certain deadlines. The Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on April 29,
2014. The Plaintiff has not responded in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, and her time for
doing so has expired, see E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.1. Thus, it appears that the Plaintiff concedes that
this suit should be dismissed. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.2.
Under these circumstances, the Court finds that it is appropriate to stay certain deadlines
contained in the Scheduling Order.

However, the undersigned will not modify all of the

deadlines, because deadlines such as the trial date and the dispositive-motion deadline are based
upon the District Judge’s schedule.
Accordingly, the Motion to Stay Imposition of the Scheduling Order [Doc. 16] is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The deadline for completing a Rule 26(f)
conference, the deadline for submitting a discovery plan, and the deadline for making initial
disclosures are STAYED pending disposition of the Motion to Dismiss. By staying the deadline
for the Rule 26(f) conference and the deadline for submitting a discovery plan, the Court has
effectively stayed discovery in this matter. Should the District Judge deny the Motion to Dismiss
[Doc. 11], the stay is DEEMED LIFTED upon entry of the District Judge’s Memorandum
Opinion and/or Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTER:
s/ C. Clifford Shirley, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

2