Brady Corporation et al v. Wood et al

Filing 32

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 8/28/2024 DENYING 29 Defendants' Expedited Motion to Stay Discovery. (cc: all counsel)(jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
BRADY CORPORATION and BRADY
WORLDWIDE, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 24-CV-265-JPS

ERIC WOOD and TAILORED LABEL
PRODUCTS, INC.,

ORDER

Defendants.

Before the Court is Defendants Eric Wood and Tailored Label
Products, Inc.’s (“Defendants”) Civil Local Rule 7(h) expedited motion to
stay discovery until the Court has ruled on Defendants’ motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs Brady Corporation and Brady Worldwide, Inc.’s (“Plaintiffs”) first
amended complaint. ECF No. 29 (7(h) expedited motion to stay); ECF No.
25 (pending motion to dismiss). Plaintiffs oppose the motion, ECF No. 31,
and for the reasons stated herein, it will be denied.
The Court may limit discovery “for good cause” in order to “protect
a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue
burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The Court “enjoy[s] extremely
broad discretion in controlling discovery” and “[i]t is the movant's burden
to show that good cause exists for a stay.” Jones v. City of Elkhart, 737 F.3d
1107, 1115 (7th Cir. 2013); Hayes v. Bd. of Educ. for City of Chi., No. 21 C 1198,
2021 WL 8153761, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 22, 2021) (citing Harper v. Cent. Wire,
Inc., No. 19 C 50287, 2020 WL 5230746, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2020)).

The Court well agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendants have not met
their burden. Defendants argue that discovery may be “unnecessary” due
to the pending motion to dismiss, particularly because if the motion is
granted as to Plaintiffs’ “sole federal claim, th[e] Court will very likely
relinquish jurisdiction over [the] remaining [state law] claims.” ECF No. 29
at 2, 3 (citing Dietchweiler v. Lucas, 827 F.3d 622, 631 (7th Cir. 2016)).
However, nothing in the Federal Rules suggests that cases are to be halted
any time a potentially dispositive motion is filed, especially when the
motion does not touch upon alleged jurisdictional defects. See Simstad v.
Scheub, No. 2:07 CV 407, 2008 WL 1914268, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2008)
(“The filing of a motion to dismiss by itself does not mandate a stay of
discovery pending resolution of that motion . . . .”) (citing In re Sulfuric Acid,
231 F.R.D. 331, 336 (N.D. Ill. 2005); Sprague v. Brook, 149 F.R.D. 575, 577–78
(N.D. Ill. 1993); and Walsh v. Heilmann, 472 F.3d 504, 505 (7th Cir. 2006)); see
also Omegbu v. Wis. Elections Bd., No. 05 C 596, 2006 WL 581210, at *1 (E.D.
Wis. Feb. 6, 2006).
Defendants have not argued that Plaintiffs’ discovery requests are
overbroad, oppressive, or unduly burdensome. Conversely, Plaintiffs
represent that their discovery requests are “relevant and narrowly
tailored.” ECF No. 31 at 3. Plaintiffs were able to formulate such narrowly
tailored discovery requests because the parties prepared and submitted a
joint set of jury instructions in connection with the motion to dismiss. Id.;
see also ECF No. 27 (joint proposed jury instructions laying out the elements
of Plaintiffs’ claims); ECF No. 5 at 5 (Court’s pretrial order explaining that
agreeing on proposed jury instructions at the outset of a case “will provide
an excellent blueprint for completion of relevant, narrowly tailored
discovery”). Absent any argument from Defendants on the issue, the Court
Page 2 of 3

has no independent basis to question this assertion, because in the final
analysis, the burden is on Defendants to show that a stay is warranted.
Further, it has long been the prerogative of this branch of the Court
to ensure that actions are resolved within 12–14 months of the date they are
filed. ECF No. 5 at 1. This is consistent with the Court’s discretion to control
discovery and its power over scheduling under the Federal Rules, and in
particular the admonishment of Rule 1 that the Court has a duty to ensure
the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Id.
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 1). Mothballing a case while Defendants’ motion to
dismiss is briefed and the Court issues its decision would countermand that
goal, particularly because the Court has already set a dispositive motions
deadline of January 7, 2025, which is firm in the event the motion to dismiss
is unsuccessful. ECF No. 19.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants Eric Wood and Tailored Label
Products, Inc.’s Civil Local Rule 7(h) expedited motion to stay discovery,
ECF No. 29, be and the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 28th day of August, 2024.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3