IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
Naperville Smart Meter Awareness, y
)
Plaintiff, )
») No. 11 C 9299
v. y
y Magistrate Judge
y Jeffrey T. Gilbert
City of Naperville, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER

Defendant City of Naperville’s Motion to Stay Further Discovery [ECF No. 148] is granted.
Plaintiff Naperville Smart Meter Awareness’s Motion to Compel [ECF No. 153] is denied
without prejudice. See Statement below for further details and discussion.

STATEMENT

This matter is before the Court on Defendant City of Naperville’s Motion to Stay Further
Discovery [ECF No. 148]. Defendant seeks a stay of discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(c) because it has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 146] and a
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [ECF No. 169] before the District Judge, and both
Motions [ECF Nos. 146, 169] are fully briefed and awaiting resolution. Decisions on those
Motions potentially are dispositive of the entire case.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides in relevant part that the “court may, for good
cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or
undue burden or expense....” FED. R. Civ. P. 26(c). District courts have broad discretion in
controlling discovery. In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litigation, 231 F.R.D. 331, 336 (N.D. Ill.
2005). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and (d), a court may limit the scope and
sequence of discovery. Jd. “In deciding whether to enter . . . a stay, courts consider the following
factors: (i) whether a stay will unduly prejudice or tactically disadvantage the non-moving party,
(ii) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and streamline the trial, and (iii) whether a
stay will reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court.” See generally Pfizer
Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 640 F.Supp.2d 1006, 1007 (N.D. Ill. 2009).


The Court finds that a stay of discovery is warranted under the particular circumstances of this
case. The parties have completed written discovery in this case. Most of the documents requested
in discovery have been produced except certain potentially privileged documents that Defendant
has withheld that are the subject of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [ECF No. 153]. Thus, with the
exception of the documents at issue in Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [ECF No. 154], only oral
discovery remains. At this stage in the litigation, the Court finds that further discovery in this
case before the pending Motions are resolved potentially would be futile or unnecessary and
would increase the burden of litigation on the parties and the Court. Moreover, resolution of the
Motions [ECF Nos. 146, 169] very well could simplify the issues in question, if the Motions are
not granted or denied completely, and streamline the trial. In addition, there is no indication that
Plaintiff will be unduly prejudiced by a stay of discovery. There is no trial date set in this case,
and the parties will be given ample time to complete any outstanding discovery.

Accordingly, Defendant City of Naperville’s Motion to Stay Further Discovery [ECF No. 148] is
granted. Because discovery is stayed pending resolution of Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [ECF No. 146] and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [ECF No. 169], Plaintiff
Naperville Smart Meter Awareness’s Motion to Compel [ECF No. 153] is denied without
prejudice and may be re-filed, if this case remains pending after the District Judge rules on the
dispositive motions.

It is so ordered.

Dated: March 3, 2016 if.

frey T. Gitbeft . .
nited States Magistrate Judge