Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-cv-00902-REB-BNB.
May 24, 2007
ORDER
This matter is before me on Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s, Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending a Final Transfer Decision By the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation [Doc. # 13, filed 5/22/2007] (the "Motion to Stay"). Co-defendant, Christopher Parker, does not oppose the Motion to Stay, and the plaintiff has taken no position on the motion "until after the Court has ruled on a motion to remand." Were I to stay all proceedings, there would be no ruling on the motion to remand until after the Multidistrict Litigation Panel makes its final decision about transfer, of course, so I assume that it is accurate that the plaintiff takes no position on the Motion to Stay.
The district judge has reserved to himself the motion to remand, and I certainly will not attempt to dictate when he should rule on it. Consequently, insofar as a stay of the proceedings would purport to stay the district judge's review of the motion to remand, it is denied. By contrast, I am responsible for conducting a scheduling conference and overseeing discovery. As to those matters, it appears to me that a stay is appropriate to preserve the resources of the parties and the court and to avoid potentially conflicting orders.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Stay is GRANTED IN PART, as follows:
(1) The scheduling conference set for June 18, 2007, at 3:00 p.m., is VACATED; and
(2) Discovery is STAYED pending further order of the court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Stay is DENIED in all other respects.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a status report addressing the status of the motion to transfer and the propriety of scheduling pretrial matters at the earlier of (a) ten days after any ruling by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel on the motion to transfer the case or (b) July 16, 2007.