Filed: December 13, 2012
Opinion by Judge Audrey J.S. Carrion
Held: The Court entered an order staying discovery pending resolution of motions to dismiss because the requesting party failed to show it would otherwise suffer harm or that it was needed to resolve the issues before the court.
Facts: Two companies announced a merger and shareholders sued. The Defendants filed dispositive motions and a joint motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the dispositive motions. The Defendants argued that, if the dispositive motions were granted, they would dispose of the case in its entirety. The Plaintiffs moved to compel discovery.
Held: The Court entered an order staying discovery pending resolution of motions to dismiss because the requesting party failed to show it would otherwise suffer harm or that it was needed to resolve the issues before the court.
Facts: Two companies announced a merger and shareholders sued. The Defendants filed dispositive motions and a joint motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the dispositive motions. The Defendants argued that, if the dispositive motions were granted, they would dispose of the case in its entirety. The Plaintiffs moved to compel discovery.
Analysis: The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to meet the burden of showing that they would suffer harm if they were not granted discovery. Relying upon its broad discretion to manage discovery, the Court granted the motion to stay.
The full opinion is available in .pdf.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please Post Comments Here