Opinion
22-cv-334-KG-JHR
04-28-2023
CHRISTOPHER SADOWSKI, Plaintiff, v. CONSTRUCTION REPORTER DIGITAL MAGAZINE, LLC; CONSTRUCTION REPORTER LLC, Defendants.
SUMMARY ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Christopher Sadowski's Motion to Stay (Doc. 33). Defendants timely filed a Response in opposition (Doc. 35). At first blush, a stay in this case would seem to be consistent with the notion of judicial economy and the stay granted in Adler Medical LLC et al v. Harrington, No. 22-CV-072-KG-LF, however on closer examination of this case and the distinctions between it and Adler, and having fully considered the briefing and applicable law, the Court is not persuaded that a stay is appropriate in this case.
Mr. Sadowski presents two arguments for the stay: (1) that this case is analogous to Adler, where the Court entered a stay related to similar Motion to Disqualify, and (2) judicial economy. Generally (Doc. 33). The Court summarily denies the Motion to Stay because: (1) it finds Adler Medical distinguishable in numerous ways, including that the parties and facts are distinct and that there the parties agreed to the stay, see Adler, (Doc. 91); and (2) judicial economy is insufficient to amount to a ''strong showing of necessity,” hardship, or inequity justifying a stay, Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Chilcott Portfolio Mgmt., Inc., 713 F.2d 1477, 1484 (10th Cir. 1983). The Motion to Stay is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.