Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Buaiz

April 8, 2008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOSEPH A. BUAIZ, JR., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: C. Clifford Shirley, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge

(PHILLIPS/SHIRLEY)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The parties came before the undersigned on April 4, 2008, for a telephone conference concerning a discovery dispute pursuant to the process established in the Scheduling Order [Doc. 32 at ¶ 4(i)] in this case. The parties contacted the Court to seek its assistance in resolving a dispute over whether discovery should be stayed pending the resolution of Mr. Buaiz's petition before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing en banc as to his challenge of the Court's jurisdiction in this matter. During the hearing, Mr. Buaiz stated that he was unaware of any authority establishing that discovery in this matter should be stayed pending the resolution of his petition. Similarly, Ms. Best stated that she was also unaware of any such authority.

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure governs stays pending appeal. Under Rule 8, a party should first file a motion to stay in the District Court. The Court notes that the defendants have filed two such motions [Docs. 20, 29], and that both of these motions were denied. [Docs. 24, 31] Given that the defendants' motions to stay at the District Court level have been denied, the Court is aware of no other basis for this Court to grant defendants the relief requested.

In the absence of any authority supporting the defendants' request, discussion turned to the outstanding discovery requests. Mr. Buaiz stated that he could, and would, provide responses to the outstanding discovery requests on or before April 21, 2008. The parties also agreed to amend the Scheduling Order [Doc. 32] and extend the discovery deadline to May 19, 2008. In light of the swiftly approaching discovery deadline, the parties stated that they would discuss dates and locations of any depositions that might be needed in this matter. Additionally, the parties stated that they desired to begin settlement negotiations, and indicated that they would discuss a plan and schedule for their settlement negotiations.

In light of the agreement of the parties, the Court accordingly ORDERS that the defendants shall respond to the pending discovery requests on or before April 21, 2008. The Court further ORDERS that the Scheduling Order in this matter be AMENDED to reflect a discovery deadline of May 21, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20080408

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.