Stirling v. Hunt et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying 12 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 11/15/2012.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

STEPHEN J. STIRLING,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARRY HUNT and TERESA HUNT,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 12-2737

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

Before the Court is Defendants Barry Hunt and Teresa Hunt’s
(collectively “Defendants”) November 9, 2012 Second Motion to
Stay Discovery.

(ECF No. 12.)

Defendants filed a First Motion

to Stay Discovery on October 17, 2012 (ECF No. 8.), which the
Court denied on October 24, 2012.

(ECF No. 9.)

The Court has broad discretion to manage the conduct of
discovery, including authority to stay discovery when certain
claims may be dismissed as a matter of law.

Falzone v.

Licastro, No. 1:10-cv-2918, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84510, at *2
(N.D. Ohio Aug. 2, 2011).

However “[t]he mere fact that a party

has filed a case-dispositive motion is usually deemed
insufficient to support a stay of discovery.”
citations omitted).

Id. (internal

Defendants’ First Motion contended that a

stay was warranted because motions were pending to dismiss

Plaintiff’s claims as a matter of law.

The Court found that

Defendants’ First Motion was not well taken and denied the
requested stay.

Defendants’ Second Motion does not allege any

facts, raise any arguments, or cite any authorities not
contained in their First Motion.

Defendants’ Second Motion is

not well taken, and it is DENIED.

So ordered this 15th day of November, 2012.

s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.__
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE