Opinion
1:06-cv-109.
May 26, 2010
ORDER
Having reviewed the said motion and the response thereto, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the harm or prejudice that would result from a stay. In addition, the Court finds that the interests of judicial economy weigh in favor of granting a brief stay of enforcement of the subpoena at issue that is the subject of Defendants' motion to quash until resolution of said motion to quash. Consequently, the Court will grant the motion.
WHEREFORE, it is now hereby ORDERED:
1. Defendants' Emergency Motion to Stay Enforcement of Subpoena Issued to James L. Hymes, III, Esq. (Docket No. 82) is GRANTED.
2. Any enforcement of the subpoena at issue is hereby STAYED until resolution of Defendants' Motion to Quash Subpoena or, in the alternative, to Issue a Protective Order that the Requested Documents Need Not Be Produced (Docket No. 80).