Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

BROOKS v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC, 2:14-cv-976. (2015)

Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio Number: infdco20150616b01 Visitors: 17
Filed: Jun. 15, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 15, 2015
Summary: ORDER GREGORY L. FROST , District Judge . This matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendants' motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 36), Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition (ECF No. 39), Defendants' reply memorandum (ECF No. 40), and Plaintiff's amended memorandum in opposition (ECF No. 42). Defendants ask the Court to stay all discovery until the Court issues a decision on Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff opposes such a stay, arguing that discovery is n
More

ORDER

This matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendants' motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 36), Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition (ECF No. 39), Defendants' reply memorandum (ECF No. 40), and Plaintiff's amended memorandum in opposition (ECF No. 42). Defendants ask the Court to stay all discovery until the Court issues a decision on Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff opposes such a stay, arguing that discovery is needed to respond to the motion for summary judgment. Defendants counter that "Plaintiff has certainly had every opportunity to conduct sufficient discovery to respond to Defendants' dispositive motion." (ECF No. 40, at Page ID #563.) The briefing paints two notably different pictures of how discovery has proceeded to date. Regardless of which depiction is correct, the Court finds insufficient cause for staying discovery during the pendency of the summary judgment motion. This Court therefore DENIES the motion to stay discovery. (ECF No. 36.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer