Opinion
Case No. 5:09-cv-339 (HL).
January 12, 2010
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Joint Motion to Stay (Doc. 11) (the "Motion"). For the following reasons, the Motion is denied.
The Defendant issued to Plaintiff a policy of property insurance which was effective from May 22, 2007, through May 22, 2008. The Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he suffered a loss on the insured property on August 26, 2007. The Plaintiff provided certain other information to the Defendant, such as his proof of loss, within eight months of the alleged loss. In the following months, and according to the policy, the Defendant undertook to investigate the alleged loss by requesting certain other information and demanding that the Plaintiff submit to an examination under oath. Due to scheduling conflicts, the Plaintiff never sat for such an examination, and filed suit to preserve his claim on August 24, 2009, two days before the period for filing suit expired under the policy.
In their Motion, the parties detail these events and ask the Court to exercise its discretion to stay the proceedings for an additional six months to allow the Defendant to complete its investigation and to allow the parties a chance to discuss settlement of the claim. The Court agrees with the parties that it does have discretion to adjust the normal discovery schedule for the convenience of the parties. However, six months is an extraordinary, and frankly unreasonable, amount of time for a stay of discovery, and the parties have shown no reason why this Court should exercise its discretion to grant such relief. Therefore, the Motion (Doc. 11) is denied.