Opinion
6:23-cv-1619-PGB-RMN
04-02-2024
ARDELIS VARGAS, Plaintiff, v. TRANSUNION, Defendant.
ORDER
ROBERT M. NORVOY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This cause comes before the Court for consideration without oral argument on Defendant's Motion to Stay (Dkt. 44), filed April 2, 2024. The motion is opposed, and the time to file a response has not passed. But Court does not require a response.
In its Civil Discovery Handbook, the Court advised litigants that the pendency of a dispositive motion will not justify a stay of discovery. See Middle District Discovery (2021) at 5. The Court recognizes, however, some circumstances may warrant a stay. Id.
In its motion, Defendant does not attempt to make a showing that this is one of those rare cases that warrant a stay of discovery and all case management deadlines. Without such a showing, the motion is denied.
Moving forward, counsel should familiarize themselves with the practices of this Court, including the materials available on the Court website such as the Court's Civil Discovery Handbook.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion (Dkt. 44) is DENIED.