Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied Plaintiff J. Martin Robertson’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of his motion to strike affirmative defenses. The court held that the pendency of the motion to strike, including asserted immunity and exhaustion defenses, did not justify staying discovery.
Holdings
- The pendency of a dispositive motion, including a motion to strike affirmative defenses, ordinarily is insufficient by itself to justify a stay of discovery.
- The assertion of immunity and failure-to-exhaustion defenses did not warrant a stay of discovery where defendants had not sought a stay and opposed plaintiff's request.
Questions Presented
- Whether discovery should be stayed while plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' affirmative defenses was pending.
- Whether the asserted immunity and failure-to-exhaustion defenses justified staying discovery.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (13)
- Ohio Valley Bank Co. v. MetaBank, No. 2:19-CV-191, 2019 WL 2170681, at *2 (S.D. Ohio May 20, 2019)(followed)
- Bangas v. Potter, 145 F. App'x 139, 141 (6th Cir. 2005)(followed)
- Ohio Envtl. Council v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 565 F.2d 393, 396 (6th Cir. 1977)(followed)
- Shanks v. Honda of Am. Mfg., No. 2:08-CV-1059, 2009 WL 2132621, at *1 (S.D. Ohio July 10, 2009)(followed)
- Grice Eng'g, Inc. v. JG Innovations, Inc., 691 F. Supp. 2d 915, 920 (W.D. Wis. 2010)(followed)
- Gettings v. Bldg. Laborers Local 310 Fringe Benefits Fund, 349 F.3d 300, 304 (6th Cir. 2003)(followed)
- Muzquiz v. W.A. Foote Memorial Hosp., Inc., 70 F.3d 422, 430 (6th Cir. 1995)(followed)
- Hahn v. Star Bank, 190 F.3d 708, 719 (6th Cir. 1999)(followed)
- Anderson v. Catalina Structured Funding, Inc., No. 1:21-CV-197, 2021 WL 9000112, at *2 (W.D. Mich. July 1, 2021)(followed)
- Romar Sales Corp. v. Seddon, No. 1:12-cv-838, 2013 WL 141133, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 11, 2013)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 13.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…