Filed: Aug. 31, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 31, 2017
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. SOTO , District Judge . The Court has reviewed the entire record in this case (Docs. 1 to 100) and all of the briefing associated with the filing of the early summary judgment motion. The summary judgment motion was filed on April 5, 2017, which was many months before the expiration of the discovery deadline. See Docs. 39, 47. As it currently stands, all discovery is not scheduled to be completed until December 19, 2017. In addition, this deadline could be extended one or m
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. SOTO , District Judge . The Court has reviewed the entire record in this case (Docs. 1 to 100) and all of the briefing associated with the filing of the early summary judgment motion. The summary judgment motion was filed on April 5, 2017, which was many months before the expiration of the discovery deadline. See Docs. 39, 47. As it currently stands, all discovery is not scheduled to be completed until December 19, 2017. In addition, this deadline could be extended one or mo..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. SOTO, District Judge.
The Court has reviewed the entire record in this case (Docs. 1 to 100) and all of the briefing associated with the filing of the early summary judgment motion. The summary judgment motion was filed on April 5, 2017, which was many months before the expiration of the discovery deadline. See Docs. 39, 47. As it currently stands, all discovery is not scheduled to be completed until December 19, 2017. In addition, this deadline could be extended one or more times as discovery of new information often leads to issues that need to be further explored through additional discovery that was not initially contemplated by the parties.
The Court finds that the issues related to summary judgment potentially implicate numerous fact-intensive issues, and that the summary judgment motions (Docs. 47 and Doc. 871) are premature and unwarranted at this time, and run afoul of this Court's contemplated course for proceeding with the litigation in this case as reflected in this Court's Orders. See Doc. 6 (4/21/16 Order at p. 2, line 5 to p. 3, line 14; noting that only one summary judgment motion should be filed after the completion of all discovery and that early summary judgment motions would likely be denied without prejudice until after the completion of discovery); Doc. 19 (9/23/16 Order at p. 2, line 9 to p. 3, line 16)(same). The motion for summary judgment (Doc. 47) (and the joinder thereto-Doc. 87) are denied without prejudice. As summary judgment has been denied, the motion to strike filed by Counterclaimants ("Yager") is denied as moot.
The Court will not consider, and the parties shall not file, any summary judgment motions until at least 30 days after the final discovery deadline has expired in this case.2
Lastly, the record reflects that all parties would benefit from a settlement conference. If any party thinks that a settlement conference could be fruitful, a stipulation or request for such a conference may be filed, which will likely be granted. The Court can refer the case to a United States Magistrate Judge for a settlement conference at no cost to the parties, and the Court will stay all deadlines pending the completion of the settlement conference.
