Opinion
No. 1:03-CV-68 (WLS).
December 22, 2005
ORDER
On December 16, 2005, the Court entered an Order suspending discovery in the above captioned case until further notice of the Court. (Doc. 198). The Court, having received a letter on December 22, 2005 from Defendants' counsel regarding the Court's recent suspension of discovery and the impact extended litigation has had on clients of Defendants, issues the following Order, seeking to clarify the Court's prior order suspending discovery to the degree that such clarification is necessary.
The Court notes again that it suspended discovery, not at the request of Plaintiff's counsel, but based on the Court's own determination that discovery could not properly proceed until the Court resolved pending motions affecting discovery which the parties themselves appear unable to resolve. The Court is aware that discovery has been going on for an extended period of time and notes that it has repeatedly endeavored to assist counsel in completing discovery with little success. The Court agrees that discovery in this case should have been completed; and, as the Court stated in its recent order, will meet with counsel following its rulings on the instant motions to address the parties' concerns.
By saying that, the Court does not suggest that such discovery will be protracted. The instant suspension of discovery is not intended to lengthen discovery unnecessarily, but to reign it in and bring it to a proper conclusion. To be clear, the Court has every intention to conclude discovery and resolve this case, even if it has to schedule depositions and otherwise take an active role in remaining discovery. The extent to which the Court needs to specifically direct discovery will be determined at the time of the aforementioned conference.
Therefore, until further order of the Court, discovery in the above captioned case is, and remains, SUSPENDED. SO ORDERED.