IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
April 7, 2006
SHARON L. DOUGLAS, PLAINTIFF,
JOHN E. POTTER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Clifford J. Proud U. S. Magistrate Judge
PROUD, Magistrate Judge
Defendant John E. Potter, Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service, is before the Court seeking to stay discovery until his motion to dismiss is decided, and/or until service is properly effected in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i). (Doc. 6). Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, has not responded to the motion to dismiss, or to the subject motion.
Although this Court is charged with entering a pretrial scheduling and discovery order within 90 days of appearance of a defendant, the defendant's motion to dismiss is not within the purview of this Court. In accordance with Local Rule 16.2(a), despite the pending motion to dismiss, defense counsel participated in the required scheduling and discovery conference and submitted a proposed discovery schedule. Plaintiff did not confer with defense counsel as she should have, and she did not submit a proposed schedule as required, but she did contact the Court and orally indicate that she concurred with defendant's schedule. Therefore, the Court is satisfied the parties have complied with of Federal Rul of Civil Procedure 26(f) and Local Rule 16.2(a).
With all that said, entry of a discovery schedule and beginning discovery is not appropriate until the motion to dismiss is decided. Discovery cannot be conducted efficiently while basic questions remain regarding who or what is being sued, and whether jurisdiction over the defendant(s) has properly attached.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the subject motion to stay discovery (Doc. 6) is GRANTED; discovery is stayed until the motion to dismiss (Doc. 3) is decided by United States District Judge Michael J. Reagan.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.