Filed: Mar. 03, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: ORDER STAYING REMEDIATION-RELATED DISCOVERY JANE M. VIRDEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court following the [116] hearing on the pending [111] motion of the defendant, Illinois Central Railroad Company, to stay remediation-related discovery and to continue the trial date 1 and all discovery deadlines, pending a ruling on defendant's motion to dismiss [108]. The court, having considered the motion and corresponding briefing, finds that the motion should be GRANTED in part
Summary: ORDER STAYING REMEDIATION-RELATED DISCOVERY JANE M. VIRDEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court following the [116] hearing on the pending [111] motion of the defendant, Illinois Central Railroad Company, to stay remediation-related discovery and to continue the trial date 1 and all discovery deadlines, pending a ruling on defendant's motion to dismiss [108]. The court, having considered the motion and corresponding briefing, finds that the motion should be GRANTED in part ..
More
ORDER STAYING REMEDIATION-RELATED DISCOVERY
JANE M. VIRDEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court following the [116] hearing on the pending [111] motion of the defendant, Illinois Central Railroad Company, to stay remediation-related discovery and to continue the trial date1 and all discovery deadlines, pending a ruling on defendant's motion to dismiss [108]. The court, having considered the motion and corresponding briefing, finds that the motion should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
As stated in this court's opinion in Golden Rule Fasteners Inc. v. Neverleak Co., LP, No. 3:17-CV-249-MPM-JMV, 2019 WL 257983 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 17, 2019),
District Courts have the authority to manage their dockets and discretion to stay proceedings. Peavey Elecs. Corp. v. Music Grp. Servs. US, Inc., No. 3:13-CV-934-HTW-LRA, 2014 WL 12323520, at 2 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 10, 2014). In exercising such discretion, Courts consider the following factors to determine whether the benefits of the stay outweigh the burdens of the stay: 1) whether a stay will unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving party; 2) whether stay will simplify the issues in question and the trial of the case; and 3) whether discovery is complete and a trial date has been set.
In this case, these factors weigh in favor of a brief stay of remediation-related discovery.2 Notably, the brevity of the stay mitigates against any claim of substantial prejudice to plaintiffs and does not, of itself, mandate a trial continuance. Therefore, the court will stay remediation-related discovery for the earlier of 1) the date of any order on the pending motion to dismiss [108], 2) the date of any order on the forthcoming motion to continue the trial date, or 3) a 45-day period from this day.
No longer stay or continuation of scheduling deadlines is warranted given the existing trial date. Should the trial date be continued, the movant may renew its motion for a further stay of remediation-related discovery and continuance of deadlines, but counsel are all cautioned that any renewed motion and response should address in detail precisely what remediation-related discovery is sought to be stayed and the basis therefor.
SO ORDERED.
