Monda v. Wal-Mart, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
• Decided: October 17, 2019
• Docket: 3:19-cv-00155
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

KATHY MONDA, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : Case No. 3:19-cv-155 : v. : Judge Thomas M. Rose : WAL-MART, INC., : : Defendant. :

______________________________________________________________________________

ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION OF ITS PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 15) AND IMPLEMENTING A TEMPORARY STAY OF DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION OF DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. 14) ______________________________________________________________________________

This case is before the Court on the “Renewed Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Its Partial Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. 15) (the “Motion”) filed by Defendant Walmart, Inc. The Motion has been briefed by the parties, and the matter is ripe for the Court’s review. (Docs. 15, 17, 22.) Trial courts have broad discretion and inherent power to stay discovery in cases pending before them. See Hahn v. Star Bank, 190 F.3d 708, 719-20 (6th Cir. 1999). Given the particular circumstances of this matter, the Court, in its discretion, GRANTS the Motion (Doc. 15). Id.; Gettings v. Bldg. Laborers Local 310 Fringe Benefits Fund, 349 F.3d 300, 304 (6th Cir. 2003) (a court may impose limitations on pretrial discovery “where claims may be dismissed based on legal determinations that could not have been altered by any further discovery”). The Court notes that Plaintiffs have not specified any prejudice if a temporary stay of discovery is granted, have not 1 indicated any need for discovery at this time, and have labeled the Motion as “meaningless” given the procedural status of the case (Doc. 17 at PAGEID # 268). Therefore, the Court temporarily STAYS discovery in this matter only until the Court has issued an order that resolves “Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint” (Doc. 14). The Court emphasizes that it expresses no opinion at this time on the

merits of that pending motion or on Defendant’s pending “Renewed Motion to Sever Plaintiffs’ Claims or, in the Alternative, to Try Plaintiffs’ Claims Separately” (Doc. 16). DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Thursday, October 17, 2019. s/Thomas M. Rose ________________________________ THOMAS M. ROSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE