Kendrick, David v. Hertz Corporation
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 DAVID KENDRICK, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2005-CV-0164 v. 5 5 THE HERTZ CORPORATION, 5 5 Defendant. 5 ____________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Chetema Lucas Francis, Esq. ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO STAY THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Defendant’s Appeal of Magistrate’s Order Dated December 4, 2007 (Docket No. 90) and Motion to Stay Referral to Mediation Pending Resolution of Plaintiff’s Appeal of Magistrate’s Order Dated June 26, 2007[,] and Defendant’s Appeal of Magistrate’s Order Dated December 4, 2007 (Docket No. 91). Plaintiff filed oppositions to each motion, and Defendant filed replies thereto. The Court, having considered the matter, finds that a stay of discovery is not warranted. Whether the matter ultimately is transferred or not, discovery will proceed and should not be delayed. Defendant’s reliance upon McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Polin, 429 Case: 1:05-cv-00164-RLF-GWC Document #: 107 Filed: 03/03/08 Page 1 of 3 Kendrick v. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-1_05-cv-00164/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_05-cv-00164-2.pdf
SHA-256 a3f2f44fdcffcae90017c694d7803c9c662da751a3fb094a6e68d9c513191996
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-a3f2f44fdcff
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 DAVID KENDRICK, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2005-CV-0164 v. 5 5 THE HERTZ CORPORATION, 5 5 Defendant. 5 ____________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Chetema Lucas Francis, Esq. ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO STAY THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Defendant’s Appeal of Magistrate’s Order Dated December 4, 2007 (Docket No. 90) and Motion to Stay Referral to Mediation Pending Resolution of Plaintiff’s Appeal of Magistrate’s Order Dated June 26, 2007[,] and Defendant’s Appeal of Magistrate’s Order Dated December 4, 2007 (Docket No. 91). Plaintiff filed oppositions to each motion, and Defendant filed replies thereto. The Court, having considered the matter, finds that a stay of discovery is not warranted. Whether the matter ultimately is transferred or not, discovery will proceed and should not be delayed. Defendant’s reliance upon McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Polin, 429 Case: 1:05-cv-00164-RLF-GWC Document #: 107 Filed: 03/03/08 Page 1 of 3 Kendrick v. The Hertz Corp. 2005-CV-0164 Order Regarding Defendant’s Motions to Stay F.2d 30 (3d Cir. 1970) is misplaced. There, the trial court delayed resolution of a motion to transfer until completion of discovery. The Court of Appeals decided that postponing consideration of the motion to transfer was unnecessary. Here, in the matter at bar, the motion to transfer has been decided and now is on appeal to the District Judge. The posture of Polin is completely different from the one present in this case. Moreover, one of Defendant’s reasons for seeking a stay of mediation is the fact that minimal discovery has occurred. The Court acknowledges Defendant’s appeal of its order compelling discovery. Consequently, the Court will stay compliance with such order, but will allow all other discovery to proceed. Because Defendant asserts a need for additional discovery prior to mediation, the Court will allow a temporary stay of mediation. Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED: 1. Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Defendant’s Appeal of Magistrate’s Order Dated December 4, 2007 (Docket No. 90) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 2. Defendant’s compliance with said Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Docket No. 82) is STAYED pending resolution of Defendant’s appeal of such order. All other discovery shall proceed as usual. Case: 1:05-cv-00164-RLF-GWC Document #: 107 Filed: 03/03/08 Page 2 of 3 Kendrick v. The Hertz Corp. 2005-CV-0164 Order Regarding Defendant’s Motions to Stay 3. Motion to Stay Referral to Mediation Pending Resolution of Plaintiff’s Appeal of Magistrate’s Order Dated June 26, 2007[,] and Defendant’s Appeal of Magistrate’s Order Dated December 4, 2007 (Docket No. 91) is GRANTED. 4. Mediation in this matter is STAYED pending resolution of said appeals. ENTER: Dated: March 3, 2008 /s/ GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:05-cv-00164-RLF-GWC Document #: 107 Filed: 03/03/08 Page 3 of 3