ORDER

JOHN E. STEELE, Senior District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the parties' oral motion to extend the Temporary Restraining Order and other deadlines. Also before the Court is defendant's Motion for Expedited Discovery and RICO Case Statement (Doc. #31) filed on July 19, 2015. Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Expedited Discovery and RICO Case Statement (Doc. #43) on July 24, 2015.

On July 1, 2015, the Court granted plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), and temporarily restrained and enjoined defendant Susan Elaine Devine from transferring or dissipating any assets. (Doc. #10.) The TRO is currently set to expire on July 30, 2015. (Doc. #55.) The Court held an evidentiary hearing on defendant's Motion to Modify Temporary Restraining Order to Release Funds for Living Expenses and Attorneys' Fees (Doc. #44) on July 30, 2015, during which the parties moved to extend the TRO through October 1, 2015. Because a TRO may be extended with the consent of the adverse party, Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2), the Court will grant the parties' stipulated request. The TRO will be extended through October 1, 2015, at which time the Court will hold a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendant shall have until September 23, 2015, to respond to plaintiffs' Complaint.

The parties also move for a brief stay of discovery. The Court will grant this request. Discovery will be stayed until fourteen days after the Court rules on defendant's Motion to Modify Temporary Restraining Order to Release Funds for Living Expenses and Attorneys' Fees. Because the parties agreed to the stay, defendant's Motion for Expedited Discovery (Doc. #31) will be denied as moot.

Defendant's request for an order directing plaintiffs to file a RICO case statement will also be denied. "A RICO case statement is a standard questionnaire that district courts may order from plaintiffs in civil RICO cases to `adduce the specifics that underlie general claims of RICO misconduct.'" Home Orthopedics Corp. v. Rodriguez, 781 F.3d 521, 524 n.1 (1st Cir. 2015) (quoting O'Ferral v. Trebol Motors Corp., 45 F.3d 561, 562 (1st Cir. 1995)). "The purpose of a RICO case statement is to enhance a vague complaint with additional details." Sky Med. Supply Inc. v. SCS Support Claims Servs., Inc., 17 F.Supp.3d 207, 215 n.1 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting DelRio-Mocci v. Connolly Props, Inc., Case No. 08-2753(WJM), 2009 WL 2989537, at *3 (D.N.J. Sept. 16, 2009)). A district court has discretion to order the filing of a RICO case statement. Yuhasz v. Poritz, 166 F. App'x 642, 646 (3d Cir. 2006). Because the Complaint in this matter provides detailed factual allegations regarding the alleged RICO violation, the Court finds that a RICO case statement would provide no meaningful information to defendant. If defendant believes that the Complaint is vague or otherwise inadequate, she may move for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or for a more definite statement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Defendant's motion for a RICO case statement is therefore denied.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED:

1. The parties' oral motion to extend the Temporary Restraining Order and other deadlines is GRANTED as follows:

2. Defendant's Motion for Expedited Discovery (Doc. #31) is DENIED as moot.

3. Defendant's Motion for a RICO Case Statement (Doc. #31) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED.