Strauss et al v. Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company et al

Filing 43

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 8/16/2012 Denying 38 Motion for Protective Order; and Staying the balance of discovery in this case pending the outcome of the parties' upcoming mediation. See Order. (cc: all counsel) (nts)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
RANDAL STRAUSS, and
DIANE STRAUSS,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 11-CV-981-JPS

v.
CHUBB INDEMNITY INSURANCE
COMPANY, VIGILANT INSURANCE
COMPANY, FEDERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, and GREAT NORTHERN
INSURANCE COMPANY,

ORDER

Defendants.

On August 13, 2012, plaintiffs filed an expedited motion for protective
order (Docket #38) pursuant to Civil L. R. 7(h) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) asking
the Court to direct the parties, in anticipation of the parties’ scheduled
mediation on September 5, 2012, to agree to a schedule that would resolve
the balance of their outstanding discovery requests.
District courts “enjoy broad discretion in settling discovery disputes
and in delimiting the scope of discovery in a given case.” Corley v. Rosewood
Care Center, Inc. of Peoria, 142 F.3d 1041, 1052 (7th Cir. 1998).
At this juncture in this litigation, the Court believes that the parties
have had ample opportunities to discover operative facts in preparation for
their mediation in early September 2012, and will stay the balance of
discovery pending the outcome of that mediation.
This stay in the balance of discovery will serve two functions. First,
the stay will allow breathing room for the parties to step back, put their

present squabbling in context and focus on what is necessary to prepare for
a productive and meaningful mediation session in early September. Second,
the stay will provide pause for the parties’ counsel to reach accord, in a spirit
of comity and on an informal basis, on any outstanding discovery requests
that they deem vital to a productive and meaningful mediation.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s “Expedited Motion for Protective
Order” (Docket #38) be and the same is hereby DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the balance of discovery in this case
be and the same is hereby stayed pending the outcome of the parties’
upcoming mediation; provided that, nothing in this stay limits the parties
from reaching accord, in a spirit of comity and on an informal basis, as to any
outstanding discovery requests that the parties deem vital to a productive
and meaningful mediation.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 16th day of August, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 2 of 2