ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF BULLSEYE TELECOM, INC.'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO STAY DISCOVERY (ECF 22)

ANTHONY P. PATTI, Magistrate Judge.

This matter came before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff BullsEye Telecom, Inc.'s motion for protective order and to stay discovery (ECF 22), Defendants' response in opposition (ECF 26), Plaintiff's reply (ECF 40), and the parties' joint list of unresolved issues (ECF 36). Judge Tarnow referred this motion to me for a hearing and determination (ECF 23) and the Undersigned held two telephonic status conferences to discuss the motion. Although Plaintiff originally sought a stay of all discovery, in a supplemental joint list of resolved/unresolved issues, Plaintiff clarified that, "BullsEye is not requesting a stay of all discovery in this case pending resolution of its Motion to Dismiss, but rather a stay of discovery as it pertains to the counterclaims or portions of counterclaims that are the subject of BullsEye's Motion to Dismiss." (ECF 42, Pg ID. 629-630.) A hearing was held on November 4, 2019, at which counsel appeared and the Court entertained oral argument.

Having considered the motion papers and the oral argument of counsel, and for the reasons stated on the record, which are incorporated by reference as though fully restated herein, the motion for protective order and to stay discovery (ECF 22) is DENIED. Discovery may proceed on both Plaintiff's claims and Defendants' counterclaims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.