Filed: Dec. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 21, 2018
Summary: ORDER Mot Stay — ECF No. 42 Mot Stay — ECF No. 48 PEGGY A. LEEN , Magistrate Judge . Before the court is defendant Unitel Voice, LLC's Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 42). The court has reviewed the motion, and defendants CenturyLink, Inc.'s and Somos, Inc.'s Non-Oppositions (ECF Nos. 46, 47). Rather than filing a response to the motion, plaintiff filed his own Motion to Stay or Modify the Court Order Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 48). The court has also reviewed this mot
Summary: ORDER Mot Stay — ECF No. 42 Mot Stay — ECF No. 48 PEGGY A. LEEN , Magistrate Judge . Before the court is defendant Unitel Voice, LLC's Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 42). The court has reviewed the motion, and defendants CenturyLink, Inc.'s and Somos, Inc.'s Non-Oppositions (ECF Nos. 46, 47). Rather than filing a response to the motion, plaintiff filed his own Motion to Stay or Modify the Court Order Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 48). The court has also reviewed this moti..
More
ORDER
Mot Stay — ECF No. 42
Mot Stay — ECF No. 48
PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is defendant Unitel Voice, LLC's Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 42). The court has reviewed the motion, and defendants CenturyLink, Inc.'s and Somos, Inc.'s Non-Oppositions (ECF Nos. 46, 47). Rather than filing a response to the motion, plaintiff filed his own Motion to Stay or Modify the Court Order Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 48). The court has also reviewed this motion and defendant Unitel Voice, LLC's Response (ECF No. 53).
Defendants' motion requests that this court stay discovery pending ruling on the pending motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (ECF Nos. 10, 26, 43). Defendants argue that because the motions to dismiss are potentially case-dispositive, and discovery is expected to be voluminous any discovery and discovery disputes would become moot as to any defendant dismissed from this matter.
Plaintiff's motion also requests that discovery be stayed until decision of the pending motions to dismiss. Alternatively, if the court is not inclined to stay discovery, plaintiff requests a 6-month extension of the current discovery plan and scheduling order deadlines.
Having reviewed and considered the matter,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Motions to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 42, 48) are GRANTED.
2. If one or both of the motions to dismiss are denied, the parties shall have 14 days from the date of the last order denying the motion to dismiss to submit a proposed amended discovery plan and scheduling order.
