The pendency of a motion for summary judgement is not a ground for suspending case deadlines. See, e.g., LeBoeuf v. Planet Insurance Co., 913 F. Supp. 509, 514 n. 3 (S.D. Tex. 1996) (discussing the reality of modern litigation). Were it otherwise, the Court would be faced with staying deadlines after every dispositive motion with no progress being made toward preparing the case for trial.
Texas applies the "substantive relationship test" to determine which state's law will apply to a tort claim governed by state law in a diversity action. See Gutierrez v. Collins, 583 S.W.2d 312, 318 (Tex. 1979) ("Having considered all the theories, it is the holding of this court that in the future all conflicts cases sounding in tort will be governed by the "most significant relationship test" as enunciated in Sections 6 and 145 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts."); Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 665 S.W.2d 414, 421 (Tex. 1984) (following Gutierrez and applying most significant relationship test); Perez, 81 F.3d at 576-77 (recognizing decision in Gutierrez); LeBoeuf v. Planet Ins. Co., 913 F. Supp. 509, 511 n. 1 (S.D.Tex. 1996) (Kent, J.) ("Under Texas law, the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the particular substantive issue in question governs its resolution."). The substantive relationships in this case include the fact that Eastman's plant is located in Texas, that Niro's machinery was installed in a Texas plant, that the alleged misrepresentations giving rise to the claim occurred largely in Texas, and that Eastman would have felt the effects of any harm from Niro's alleged tort within Texas.