HOWARD v. SUNTRUST INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC., CV415-015. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20150225b65
Visitors: 1
Filed: Feb. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 24, 2015
Summary: ORDER G.R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge. The parties in this removed, commercial litigation case have filed an unusual Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Report. 1 Doc. 13. They acknowledge defendant Suntrust Investment Services, Inc.'s (Suntrust's) pending motion to compel arbitration and stay discovery — now before the district judge. Doc. 13 at 1. Suntrust cites that motion in refusing to make Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures. Id. Plaintiff David W. Howard, meanwhile, also refuses to comply because, he conten
Summary: ORDER G.R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge. The parties in this removed, commercial litigation case have filed an unusual Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Report. 1 Doc. 13. They acknowledge defendant Suntrust Investment Services, Inc.'s (Suntrust's) pending motion to compel arbitration and stay discovery — now before the district judge. Doc. 13 at 1. Suntrust cites that motion in refusing to make Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures. Id. Plaintiff David W. Howard, meanwhile, also refuses to comply because, he contend..
More
ORDER
G.R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.
The parties in this removed, commercial litigation case have filed an unusual Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Report.1 Doc. 13. They acknowledge defendant Suntrust Investment Services, Inc.'s (Suntrust's) pending motion to compel arbitration and stay discovery — now before the district judge. Doc. 13 at 1. Suntrust cites that motion in refusing to make Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures. Id. Plaintiff David W. Howard, meanwhile, also refuses to comply because, he contends, his case was wrongfully removed. Id. at 2 ("Plaintiff objects to making Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures based on the facts and law of this case being better suited for State Court.")2
On the same day that Suntrust filed the Rule 26(f) Report, it filed an "Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Stay of State Court Action, [Etc.]." Doc. 12. It will be heard by the district judge on March 2, 2015. Doc. 16. Given these facts, the Court GRANTS the parties' implied motion to stay this case pending a ruling on Suntrust's emergency motion. Doc. 13 at 1-2. Hence, no Scheduling Order will be issued at this time, but the parties shall promptly submit a new Rule 26(1) Report if this case remains active following the district judge's injunction/stay ruling.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. See Local Rule 26.1(b) ("Within 14 days after the required conference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), the parties shall submit to the Court a written report outlining their proposed discovery plan."). Their Report, of course, is necessary for the Court's issuance of a Scheduling Order. See Local Rule 26.1(c) ("Upon receipt and review of the parties' written report, and within the time set by Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), the Court, through the Judge or Magistrate Judge, will promptly enter its Scheduling Order as provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).").
2. There is no motion to remand this case on the docket.
Source: Leagle
