______________________________________________________________________________

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND

MOTION TO STAY Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DEBORAH LAUFER, 

Individually, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

GALTESVAR OM, LLC,

 Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 1:20-CV-00588-RP

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND

MOTION TO STAY

Defendant Galtesvar OM, LLC (“Defendant”) moves for protective order and

motion to stay, respectfully showing the Court as follows: 

Plaintiff has a pending Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s lawsuit based on a lack of 

standing, which has been referred to Magistrate Judge Lane. Since the completion of 

briefing on that Motion to Dismiss, the Honorable Judge James R. Nowlin found that 

Plaintiff did not have standing in a case before him, and he granted an identical 

motion to dismiss in Deborah Laufer v. Mann Hospitality, LLC, Cause No. A-20-CV00620-JRN. The Mann Hospitality case involved the same allegations, the same 

Plaintiff and essentially the same defendant hotel in a different location. Plaintiff has 

stated that she plans to appeal the Mann decision to the Fifth Circuit. 

Given the now persuasive—if not binding authority—in support of finding 

Plaintiff lacks standing and an award of attorneys’ fees in favor of counsel for the 
______________________________________________________________________________

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND

MOTION TO STAY Page 2

Defendant in Mann, counsel for Defendant suggested that the parties stand-down on 

discovery and other work on the case so as not to burden Defendant or potentially 

result in a greater award of attorneys’ fees against the Plaintiff if this Court were to 

follow Judge Nowlin’s decision and make such an award. Plaintiff, however, has 

refused this reasonable proposal. 

Accordingly, Defendant brings this Motion to avoid further expense. Even if 

Defendant may recover a judgment of attorneys’ fees against Plaintiff, there is no 

certainty that she has sufficient assets to satisfy such an award. Moreover, there is 

no prejudice to Plaintiff to delay discovery and the other deadlines in the case while 

a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss is rendered.

A. Applicable Legal Principles. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that a 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)(1). A court may afford 

that protection by, among other things, forbidding the discovery or specifying the 

terms, including the time and place, for the discovery. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1)(A)-(B).

B. The Court Should Protect Defendant From Incurring Further 

Expense Where Plaintiff Has Been Found Not to Have Standing. 

Defendant invokes Rule 26 and “good cause” based on the finding by Judge 

Nowlin that Plaintiff had no standing in a nearly identical case in this very district. 

Accordingly, Defendant reasonably asks that the Court issue an order to protect it 

from the “undue burden or expense” of responding to discovery, such as Plaintiff’s

Requests for Interrogatories and Requests for Production dated October 7, 2020 (the 
______________________________________________________________________________

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND

MOTION TO STAY Page 3

“October 7 Discovery”) and other deadlines in the Scheduling Order pending 

Magistrate Lane’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss this lawsuit for Plaintiff’s 

lack of standing. This Court has the power pursuant to Rule 26 to afford the 

protection requested by staying the October 7 Discovery and the other deadlines in 

the scheduling order until resolution of the Motion to Dismiss by Magistrate Judge 

Lane and approved by Judge Pittman. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1)(A)-(B).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Defendant requests that the Court grant 

Defendant’s Motion for Protection and Motion for Stay, protecting Defendant from 

the October 7 Discovery, and staying all discovery and other deadlines in the 

scheduling order until resolution of the Motion to Dismiss by Magistrate Judge Lane 

and approval of that recommendation by Judge Pittman along with such other and 

further relief to which Defendant may be entitled. 

DATED: November 5, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Edward Jason Dennis

Edward Jason Dennis

State Bar No. 24045776

jdennis@lynnllp.com

LYNN, PINKER, HURST 

& SCHWEGMANN, L.L.P.

2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700

Dallas, Texas 75201

Telephone: (214) 981-3832

Facsimile: (214) 981-3839

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
______________________________________________________________________________

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND

MOTION TO STAY Page 4

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Consistent with Local Rule CV-7(f), the parties have conferred in good faith 

regarding the substance of this Motion but have been unable to resolve the issues 

presented by agreement. Plaintiff opposes any protection or stay. Accordingly, the 

Motion is submitted for the Court’s determination. 

/s/ Edward Jason Dennis

 Edward Jason Dennis

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has 

been served on this day November 5, 2020, via the Court’s ECF system to all counsel 

of record. 

/s/ Edward Jason Dennis

 Edward Jason Dennis