STILLWAGON v. THE CITY OF DELAWARE, 2:14-cv-1606. (2016)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20160420c99
Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 05, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 05, 2016
Summary: ORDER EDMUND A. SARGUS, Jr. , District Judge . Shortly after filing their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 29 in Case No. 807], Defendants filed a Motion for Protective Order [Doc. 30 in Case No. 807; Doc. 25 in Case No. 1606]. 1 Defendants requested that the Court stay discovery depositions in Case No. 807 pending a resolution of the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. ( See Mot. for Protective Order at 1.) In his February 25, 2016 Order [Doc. 59 in Case No. 807; Doc. 53 in
Summary: ORDER EDMUND A. SARGUS, Jr. , District Judge . Shortly after filing their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 29 in Case No. 807], Defendants filed a Motion for Protective Order [Doc. 30 in Case No. 807; Doc. 25 in Case No. 1606]. 1 Defendants requested that the Court stay discovery depositions in Case No. 807 pending a resolution of the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. ( See Mot. for Protective Order at 1.) In his February 25, 2016 Order [Doc. 59 in Case No. 807; Doc. 53 in C..
More
ORDER
EDMUND A. SARGUS, Jr., District Judge.
Shortly after filing their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 29 in Case No. 807], Defendants filed a Motion for Protective Order [Doc. 30 in Case No. 807; Doc. 25 in Case No. 1606].1 Defendants requested that the Court stay discovery depositions in Case No. 807 pending a resolution of the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (See Mot. for Protective Order at 1.) In his February 25, 2016 Order [Doc. 59 in Case No. 807; Doc. 53 in Case No. 1606], the Magistrate Judge denied Defendants' Motion for Protective Order.
Defendants have objected to the Magistrate Judge's February 25 Order and moved to stay the Order's application until the Court rules on the pending Objections. In their Objections, Defendants reassert their contention that the Court should stay discovery in this case pending a resolution of the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Given that the Court has now resolved the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Defendants' Objections [Doc. 62 in Case No. 807; Doc. 56 in Case No. 1606] are OVERRULED and the Motion for Stay [Doc. 61 in Case No. 807; Doc. 55 in Case No. 1606] is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Defendant Richard O. Mattingly did not join in the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Motion for Protective Order.
Source: Leagle
