ORDER

KATHERINE MENENDEZ, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court following the withdrawal of counsel for LME, Inc., and Wren Equipment, LLC, and the Assignment for Benefit of Creditors of the same two defendants to Alliance Management, LLC. The Court recently held a status conference to discuss this matter and sought input from all parties regarding whether to enter a complete or partial stay. For the reasons set forth below, the Court orders that this matter be STAYED in most respects. The deadlines currently contained in the Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF 107) are suspended. Formal discovery is suspended as well. The Court will hold a status conference in 60 days to discuss whether the stay should continue to remain in effect, should be lifted, or should be altered in some way.

In determining whether to grant a stay, the Court considers the following factors:

Card Tech. Corp. v. DataCard Corp., No. 05-cv-2546 (MJD/SRN), 2007 WL 551615 at *3 (D. Minn. Feb. 21, 2007). The Court has substantial discretion to weigh these factors in light of the unique circumstances of the case before it and to decide whether a stay is appropriate using its inherent power to manage litigation.1 See Honeywell Intern., Inv. V. Furuno Elec. Co. Ltd., No. 09-cv-3601 (MJD/AJB), 2010 WL 3023529 at *2 (D. Minn. July 30, 2010) (citations omitted).

Against this legal backdrop, the Court finds that a stay for at least the next 60 days is appropriate for two reasons. First, two of the lead defendants are now unrepresented, and corporations may not appear pro se in federal court. Antioch Co. v. Scrapbook Borders, Inc., 210 F.R.D. 645, 647 (D. Minn. 2002); see also Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993). Unless those defendants are able to obtain counsel, they will be found in default, precluding a ruling on the merits. See Forsythe v. Hales, 255 F.3d 487, 490 (8th Cir. 2001); Antioch, 210 F.R.D. at 647 n.1. Second, these two lead defendants have significant amounts of discovery that will need to be produced in order to resolve this litigation. However, due to the receivership, they cannot readily provide that discovery, whether they are treated as defendants or as third parties. This reality will render discovery very difficult, if not impossible, in the near term.

During the status conference, some defendants suggested that this matter should be stayed except as to settlement discussions. The Court agrees with this course of action. The Court is willing to schedule this matter for a settlement conference for the remaining defendants if the parties first undertake sincere efforts to resolve the litigation through direct negotiations. Therefore, during the next 60 days, the remaining defendants and plaintiffs should engage in focused settlement discussions with their respective clients and with one another. These discussions must include the exchange of specific offers and demands and must involve a sincere effort to resolve the litigation without further expense and without further intervention of the Court.2 A telephonic status conference to discuss next steps in this matter will be scheduled for Tuesday, November 12, 2019. One week prior to the telephonic status conference, counsel for each party must email the Court a confidential communication to update the Court regarding the status of these negotiations. In addition, counsel for the receiver is invited to participate in this call and to submit any communication it believes appropriate.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: