Stake Center Locating v. Logix Communications
Filing
72
MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order denying 66 Logix's Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 4/20/2015. (jds)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
STAKE CENTER LOCATING,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:13-cv-01090-TS-DBP
v.
District Judge Ted Stewart
LOGIX COMMUNICATIONS,
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
Defendant.
This matter was referred to the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). (Dkt. 23.) The case
involves an alleged breach of a contract for provision of underground utility locating services. It
is presently before the Court on Defendant Logix Communications’ (“Logix”) motion to stay
discovery pending resolution of its disqualification motion. (Dkt. 66.).
Analysis
I.
Defendant has not established good cause to stay the case.
Logix argues that the case must be stayed because Logix moved to disqualify one of the
law firms representing Plaintiff Stake Center Locating (“SCL”). SCL opposes the stay by
pointing out that the proposed stay is unnecessary because, even assuming an irreparable conflict
exists, the pending discovery will not be affected by it. The Court has reviewed the parties
briefing on the matter. (See id.; Dkt. 69; Dkt. 71.)
The Court has discretion to grant a stay of discovery pursuant to Rule 26. E.g. Moore v.
Busby, 92 F. App'x 699, 702 (10th Cir. 2004). Here, Logix has not shown good cause to justify a
Page 1 of 2
stay of the limited discovery still pending. The Court agrees with SCL that the outstanding
discovery will not be materially affected by the conflict raised by Logix. Logix has apparently
conceded that the Hagris and Henriksen depositions may go forward. Moreover, any discovery
responses supplemented by Logix will not be affected by SCL’s counsel’s purported conflict.
Logix argues that it should not be required to disclose sensitive documents to SCL’s counsel.
(Dkt. 66.) This argument is puzzling given Logix previous argument that Parsons Behle should
be disqualified because one of their attorneys already has sensitive information about Logix.
Even assuming a conflict exists, the Court cannot find on the facts presented that such conflict
will be exacerbated by the document production previously ordered.
Finally, the Court finds that the Stone deposition will not be materially affected by the
purported conflict because Mr. Stone is a third-party witness. Logix has not offered any specific
harm that will be caused by moving forward with the Stone deposition. Instead, Logix indicates
they refused to go forward “given the clear conflict” of Parsons Behle. The Court has no
information on which it could find that this deposition will be materially adversely affected if
Mr. Bell takes it on behalf of SCL.
Order
Based on the foregoing, Logix’s motion to stay (Dkt. 66.) is hereby
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 20th day of April, 2014.
By the Court:
Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?