ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER MOTION TO STAY CASE [175] AND GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE AND TRIAL DATES [176]

OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, District Judge.

On June 25, 2014, pro se1 Defendant Troy Stratos moved to have the Court reconsider its May 16, 2014 Order Denying Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Criminal-Case Resolution (ECF No. 175), and also moved to continue the trial and trial-related dates (ECF No. 176.) After the Court set an expedited briefing schedule, Plaintiffs timely responded to the Motions. (ECF No. 185.)

First, Stratos ostensibly moves the Court to reconsider its previous denial of his request to stay this civil action pending resolution of his related criminal case. But even cursory examination of his Motion reveals that it has little to do with his pending criminal case; rather, he asks the Court to stay this action until the "[United States] District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has made a decision regarding transferring venue." (ECF No. 175, at 4.) Plaintiffs oppose any stay in this action.

The Court would be waiting quite a long time if it were to stay this case until word came through from Pennsylvania. That's because the District Court there is not mulling over its venue-transfer decision. To the contrary, the Court stayed the action and "placed [it] in suspense until further order of the Court." Burns v. Stratos, No. 2:14-cv-02134-ER (E.D. Pa. June 10, 2014). The Court also ordered "Defendant's counsel . . . to inform the Court promptly of any developments in this case including a decision by the Ninth Circuit in the related case currently proceeding in California." Id.

Since there is no Motion or other request pending before the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that could remotely bear upon this action, the Court DENIES Stratos's request to stay this case. (ECF No. 175.)

Stratos also seeks to continue the outstanding trial and pretrial dates in this action so that he can review discovery and otherwise meaningfully participate in the pretrial process. In their response, Plaintiffs request that the Court continue the July 7, 2014 filing date for pretrial documents to Friday, July 11, 2014, so that they can incorporate Stratos's soon-to-be-taken deposition into those documents.

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the flurry of activity necessitated by the thwarted attempt to take Stratos's deposition warrants a brief continuance. But continuing the deadline for submission of pretrial documents until the Friday before the pretrial conference would not leave the Court much time to review them. The Court therefore GRANTS IN PART Stratos's Motion (ECF No. 176), and sets the following schedule (changed dates appear in bold):

IT IS SO ORDERED.