Sibley v. Touro LCMC Health

E.D. Louisiana

Sibley v. Touro LCMC Health

DecidedFebruary 21, 2024

Docket2:22-cv-04757

StatusUnknown

This text of Sibley v. Touro LCMC Health (Sibley v. Touro LCMC Health) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sibley v. Touro LCMC Health, (E.D. La. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

BRANDI SIBLEY CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 22-4757

TOURO LCMC HEALTH, ET AL SECTION: “P” (4)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is a Motion to Stay Discovery filed by Defendants, Greg Feirn, Dr. John Heaton, and Louisiana Children’s Medical Center d/b/a LCMC Health (improperly named as “Touro LCMC Health”) (collectively, “Defendants”).1 Defendants move this Court to stay all discovery in this matter until the Court rules on Defendants’ motions to dismiss that are currently under submission. Plaintiff, Brandi Sibley, did not file any opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery. Having considered the record, the applicable law, and the Defendants’ briefing in support of the instant motion, the Court finds that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (R. Doc. 38) should be GRANTED. This Court “has ‘broad discretion and inherent power to stay discovery until preliminary questions that may dispose of the case are determined.’”2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), “the court may stay discovery for ‘good cause,’ such as a finding that further discovery will impose undue burden or expense without aiding the resolution of the dispositive motions.”3 For the reasons provided in the instant Motion to Stay Discovery, the Court finds that Defendants have shown good cause and that a stay of

1 R. Doc. 38. 2 Fujita v. United States, 416 F. App’x 400, 402 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir. 1987)). 3 Id. discovery until the Court’s resolution of Defendants’ motions to dismiss is appropriate to conserve the resources of the parties. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (R. Doc. 38) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all discovery in this matter is STAYED until the Court rules on Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 21st day of February 2024.

i _-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

BRANDI SIBLEY CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 22-4757

TOURO LCMC HEALTH, ET AL SECTION: “P” (4)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is a Motion to Stay Discovery filed by Defendants, Greg Feirn, Dr. John Heaton, and Louisiana Children’s Medical Center d/b/a LCMC Health (improperly named as “Touro LCMC Health”) (collectively, “Defendants”).1 Defendants move this Court to stay all discovery in this matter until the Court rules on Defendants’ motions to dismiss that are currently under submission. Plaintiff, Brandi Sibley, did not file any opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery. Having considered the record, the applicable law, and the Defendants’ briefing in support of the instant motion, the Court finds that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (R. Doc. 38) should be GRANTED. This Court “has ‘broad discretion and inherent power to stay discovery until preliminary questions that may dispose of the case are determined.’”2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), “the court may stay discovery for ‘good cause,’ such as a finding that further discovery will impose undue burden or expense without aiding the resolution of the dispositive motions.”3 For the reasons provided in the instant Motion to Stay Discovery, the Court finds that Defendants have shown good cause and that a stay of

1 R. Doc. 38. 2 Fujita v. United States, 416 F. App’x 400, 402 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir. 1987)). 3 Id. discovery until the Court’s resolution of Defendants’ motions to dismiss is appropriate to conserve the resources of the parties. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (R. Doc. 38) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all discovery in this matter is STAYED until the Court rules on Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 21st day of February 2024.

i _-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sibley v. Touro LCMC Health, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sibley-v-touro-lcmc-health-laed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack