ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY, RE: 41 Motion to Stay Discovery and Initial Disclosures Pending Resolution of Motion to Sever and Transfer and Motions to Dismiss. (Ordered¶

Stewart v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center et al, No. 5:23-cv-00007-H (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 42 · 2023-10-06 · PDF

Text extracted from the PDF; scanned pages were read by OCR. The PDF is the authoritative copy.

Case 5:23-cv-00007-H

Document 42

Filed 10/06/23

Page 1 of 1

PageID 324

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DTVISION
GEORGE STEWART,
Plaintitr,

No. 5:23-CY-007 -H

v.

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH
SCIENCES CENTER, et a1.,
Defendants.

ORDER DEI\]ANG MOTION TO STAY
Before the Court is the UT Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery and

Initial Disclosures Pending Resolution of Motion to Sever and Transfer and Motions to
Dismiss. Dkt. No. 41. The motion is denied. First, even if this case is transferred to
another court, discovery conducted up to that point will be beneficial to the parties. Second,
parties routinely move to dismiss claims, and the Court will not stay the factual
development of those cases pending resolution of dismissal motions. Indeed, in this district,
staying discovery while a motion to dismiss is pending "is the exception rather than the

ruIe." Glazer's Wholesale Drug Co. v. Klein Foods,lzc., No. 3-08-CV-0774'L,2008 WL
2930482, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 23,2008); see also Ford Motor Co. v. U.S. Auto Club, Motoing

Div., Inc., No. 3-07-CY-2182-L,2008 WL 2038887 , at *1 (N.D. Tex. Apr.24,2008). Thus,
the UT Defendants' motion to stay (Dkt. No. 41) is denied.
So ordered on Octobe, Q ,2023.

WESLEY HENDRIX
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE