WEEKS v. LEEWARD ISLANDS APOTHECARIES DBA MEDICINE SHOP
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 TAMYKA WEEKS, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 1:09-cv-50 5 v. 5 5 LEEWARD ISLANDS APOTHECARIES, 5 LLC d/b/a THE MEDICINE SHOPPE, TROY 5 A. DE CHABERT-SCHUSTER, GREGORY 5 L. SCHUSTER, and LOWELL SCHUSTER, 5 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: K. Glenda Cameron, Esq. Robert A. Waldman, Esq. ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (Docket No. 15). Plaintiff filed an opposition to said motion, and Defendants filed a reply thereto. Defendants seek a stay of discovery pending resolution of their motion to dismiss. Plaintiff opposes a stay, arguing that the harm produced by the delay outweighs the possibility that the motion will be granted and entirely eliminate the need for discovery. Case: 1:09-cv-00050-TJS Document #: 20 Filed: 05/26/10 Page 1 of 3 Weeks 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_09-cv-00050/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_09-cv-00050-0.pdf
SHA-256 e8b27b9a8dec891e7f6dc3abb6b5ad3b6d6773a138365c8b415452d04b0bc996
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-e8b27b9a8dec
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 TAMYKA WEEKS, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 1:09-cv-50 5 v. 5 5 LEEWARD ISLANDS APOTHECARIES, 5 LLC d/b/a THE MEDICINE SHOPPE, TROY 5 A. DE CHABERT-SCHUSTER, GREGORY 5 L. SCHUSTER, and LOWELL SCHUSTER, 5 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: K. Glenda Cameron, Esq. Robert A. Waldman, Esq. ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (Docket No. 15). Plaintiff filed an opposition to said motion, and Defendants filed a reply thereto. Defendants seek a stay of discovery pending resolution of their motion to dismiss. Plaintiff opposes a stay, arguing that the harm produced by the delay outweighs the possibility that the motion will be granted and entirely eliminate the need for discovery. Case: 1:09-cv-00050-TJS Document #: 20 Filed: 05/26/10 Page 1 of 3 Weeks v. Leeward Islands Apothecaries, LLC 1:09-cv-50 Order It is generally accepted that “a district court has broad discretion ‘to stay discovery until preliminary questions that may dispose of the case are determined.’ Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 581, 582 (5th Cir. 1987). Such a stay is not, however, automatically granted whenever a motion to dismiss is pending . . . .” Keystone Coke Co. v. Pasquale, No. Civ. A. 97-6074, 1999 WL 46622 at *1 (E.D. Pa. January 7, 1999) (citations omitted). As the United States District Court for the Northern District of California observes: Had the Federal Rules contemplated that a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. [sic] 12(b)(6) would stay discovery, the Rules would contain a provision to that effect. . . . Furthermore, a stay of the type requested by defendants, where a party asserts that dismissal is likely, would require the court to make a preliminary finding of the likelihood of success on the motion to dismiss. This would circumvent the procedures for resolution of such a motion. Gray v. First Winthrop Corp., 133 F.R.D. 39, 40 (N.D. Cal. 1990). Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to carry their “heavy burden of making a ‘strong showing’ why discovery should be denied.” Id. (citing Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9 Cir. 1975)). th Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (Docket No. 15) is DENIED. Case: 1:09-cv-00050-TJS Document #: 20 Filed: 05/26/10 Page 2 of 3 Weeks v. Leeward Islands Apothecaries, LLC 1:09-cv-50 Order ENTER: Dated: May 26, 2010 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:09-cv-00050-TJS Document #: 20 Filed: 05/26/10 Page 3 of 3