IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

DOMINION TRANSMISSION, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. Civil Action 2:11-CV-836 

 Judge Sargus 

 Magistrate Judge King 

JOSEPH DETWEILER, et al., 

 Defendants. 

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Contract Land Staff, LLC’s 

Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Dispositive Motions 

(“Motion to Stay”), Doc. No. 52, which is unopposed, and the Second 

Joint Motion to Amend Case Schedule (“Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling 

Order”), Doc. No. 53. For the reasons that follow, both motions are 

DENIED. 

I. Background 

 This case was filed on September 19, 2011. Complaint, Doc. No. 

2. The case was stayed from October 14, 2011 through January 5, 2012, 

pending bankruptcy proceedings of defendant J.J. Detweiler 

Enterprises, Inc., filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the 

Northern District of Ohio. See Doc. Nos. 12, 13. 

After the stay was lifted, this Court issued a Preliminary 

Pretrial Order, Doc. No. 21, requiring, inter alia, that all discovery 

be completed by November 1, 2012. That order specifically advised the 

parties “that the discovery completion date requires that discovery 

requests be made sufficiently in advance to permit timely response by 

Case: 2:11-cv-00836-EAS-NMK Doc #: 54 Filed: 03/11/13 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

that date.” Id. at p. 2. The Court, upon joint motion, amended the 

case schedule on September 27, 2012, to require the completion of all 

discovery by March 1, 2013. Entry Granting Joint Motion to Amend Case 

Schedule, Doc. No. 43. 

On August 22, 2012, plaintiff/counter defendant Dominion 

Transmission, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims filed 

against it by defendants/counter claimants Joseph Detweiler and J.J. 

Detweiler Enterprises, Inc., Doc. No. 30. On September 14, 2012, 

third party defendant Contract Land Staff, LLC (“CLS”), filed a motion 

for judgment on the pleadings, Doc. No. 40. Third-party defendant 

Rockies Express Pipeline LLC filed a motion for judgment on the 

pleadings, Doc. No. 46, on October 12, 2012. CLS now seeks to stay 

discovery pending resolution of the dispositive motions. Motion to 

Stay, p. 1. The parties also jointly seek a sixty day extension of 

the discovery, expert report production and motion for summary 

judgment deadlines. Joint Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order, p. 1. 

II. Motion to Stay 

The Court has broad discretion to manage the conduct of discovery 

and to control its docket. See In re Air Crash Disaster, 86 F.3d 498, 

516 (6th Cir. 1996); ACLU of Ky. v. McCreary Cnty., 607 F.3d 439, 451 

(6th Cir. 2010). In determining whether or not to grant a stay of 

discovery, “a court weighs the burden of proceeding with discovery 

upon the party from whom discovery is sought against the hardship 

which would be worked by a denial of discovery.” Bowens v. Columbus 

Metro. Library Bd. of Trs., No. 2:10-cv-219, 2010 WL 3719245, at *1 

(S.D. Ohio Sept. 16, 2010) (citing Ohio Bell Tel. Co., Inc. v. Global 

NAPs Ohio, Inc., No. 2:06-cv-549, 2008 WL 641242, at *1 (S.D. Ohio 

Mar. 4, 2008)). Alleged costs associated with discovery, without 

Case: 2:11-cv-00836-EAS-NMK Doc #: 54 Filed: 03/11/13 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3 

details of a specific burden, are unlikely to justify a stay of 

discovery. See, e.g., City of Lancaster v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, No. 

10–cv–1041, 2011 WL 1326280, at *4-5 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 5, 2011) 

(refusing to stay discovery where, inter alia, the party seeking the 

stay “makes no effort to detail the specific burdens it will face from 

discovery in this case; nor does it explain how the prejudice it would 

face is different from any other party that files a potentially casedispositive motion”). Courts in this division have also “frequently 

found that ‘the fact that a party has filed a case-dispositive motion 

is usually deemed insufficient to support a stay of discovery.’” Id. 

at *3 (quoting Bowens, 2010 WL 3719245 at *2). See also Williams v. 

New Day Farms, LLC, No. 2:10–cv–0394, 2010 WL 3522397, at *2-3 (S.D. 

Ohio Sept. 7, 2010) (denying motion to stay discovery). 

 In the case presently before the Court, CLS seeks a stay of 

discovery pending resolution of the pending dispositive motions. 

Motion to Stay, p. 1. CLS argues that “discovery is not necessary for 

this Court to render a decision on the dispositive motions,” that a 

stay would not unduly prejudice any party, and that there is a high 

likelihood that the pending dispositive motions will be granted. Id. 

at pp. 4-5. CLS also argues that it will be prejudiced if a stay is 

not granted because it “would be forced to incur the expenses of 

defending a case that may be dismissed on legal grounds.” Id. at p. 

4. These arguments are without merit. 

 First, CLS relies on the pending dispositive motions to justify a 

stay of discovery, but the fact that a party has filed a casedispositive motion is usually deemed insufficient to support a stay of 

discovery. See Ohio Bell Tel. Co., 2008 WL 641252 at *1. Second, the 

fact that “discovery is not necessary for this Court to render a 

Case: 2:11-cv-00836-EAS-NMK Doc #: 54 Filed: 03/11/13 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4 

decision on the dispositive motions,” see Motion to Stay, p. 4, adds 

nothing to the argument because discovery is never necessary for the 

resolution of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or a 

motion for judgment on the pleadings. Further, CLS has failed to 

demonstrate that discovery will be unduly burdensome under the 

circumstances. In contending that it will be prejudiced by having to 

proceed with discovery, CLS relies solely on the notion that discovery 

may prove unnecessary if the dispositive motions are granted. See id. 

CLS makes no effort, however, to detail the specific burdens it will 

face should it be required to proceed with discovery nor does it 

explain how any such prejudice is different from that experienced by 

every other party that files a potentially case-dispositive motion 

with this Court. Finally, having reviewed the case dispositive 

motions and related briefing, it is apparent that none of the parties’ 

contentions are frivolous. See Williams, 2010 WL 3522397 at *2 

(suggesting that a motion to stay might be appropriate where “it is 

patent that the case lacks merit and will almost certainly be 

dismissed”); Ohio Bell Tel. Co., 2008 WL 641252 at *2 (refusing to 

stay discovery due to a dispositive motion where the issues the motion 

raised were “fairly debatable”). CLS’s Motion to Stay, Doc. No. 52, 

is therefore DENIED. 

II. Joint Motion to Amend 

On February 14, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to amend 

the scheduling order in which they request a sixty day extension of 

the dates by which they must complete discovery, file expert reports 

and file motions for summary judgment. Joint Motion to Amend the 

Scheduling Order, p. 1. The requested extension was made “to defer 

the unnecessary cost of discovery on issues that may be eliminated by 

Case: 2:11-cv-00836-EAS-NMK Doc #: 54 Filed: 03/11/13 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
5 

this Court’s decision on the pending dispositive motions.” Id. at p. 

4. 

 Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the 

Court, in each civil action not exempt from that rule, to issue a 

scheduling order that, inter alia, limits the time to complete 

discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). “A schedule may be modified only 

for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b)(4). “‘The primary measure of Rule 16’s ‘good cause’ standard is 

the moving party’s diligence in attempting to meet the case management 

order’s requirements.’” Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 625 

(6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Bradford v. DANA Corp., 249 F.3d 807, 809 

(8th Cir. 2001)). Whether to grant leave under Rule 16(b) falls 

within the district court’s discretion. Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 

888, 909 (6th Cir. 2003). 

 In the case presently before the Court, the parties have utterly 

failed to establish good cause for modifying the scheduling order. 

The parties have not demonstrated that they made any attempt 

whatsoever to complete discovery prior to the March 1, 2013 deadline, 

despite previously having been granted a 120 day extension, see Entry 

Granting Joint Motion to Amend Case Schedule, Doc. No. 43, and being 

advised “that the discovery completion date requires that discovery 

requests be made sufficiently in advance to permit timely response by 

that date.” Preliminary Pretrial Order, Doc. No. 21, p. 2. In fact, 

it appears that Dominion Transmission, Inc., may be the only party to 

have engaged in any discovery in this matter. See Motion to Stay, p. 

3 (“Although the Parties agreed to defer the cost of discovery, 

Dominion has recently served CLS, REX, and Detweiler with written 

discovery requests presumably because of the imminent discovery cutCase: 2:11-cv-00836-EAS-NMK Doc #: 54 Filed: 03/11/13 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
6 

off.”), 4 (“It must also be noted that the only party that has 

attempted to engage in discovery is Dominion . . . .”). Furthermore, 

the only reason cited for the requested extension – i.e., to defer the 

cost of discovery pending resolution of dispositive motions - is not, 

in this Court’s opinion, sufficient to establish good cause. The 

Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, Doc. No. 53, is therefore 

DENIED. 

 Based on the foregoing, the Motion to Stay, Doc. No. 52, is 

DENIED. The Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, Doc. No. 53, is 

also DENIED. 

March 11, 2013 s/Norah McCann King_______ 

 Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:11-cv-00836-EAS-NMK Doc #: 54 Filed: 03/11/13 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>