UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

JEFFREY BLEVINS, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PREMIUM MERCHANT FUNDING ONE,

LLC,

Defendant.

No.: 2:18-cv-00377

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT PREMIUM MERCHANT 

FUNDING ONE, LLC’S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY 

AND NOW, comes Defendant Premium Merchant Funding One, LLC (“Premium 

Merchant”), by and through its undersigned counsel and files the within Motion to Stay 

Discovery pending resolution of Premium Merchant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and 

in support thereof, state as follows: 

On August 6, 2018, Premium Merchant filed its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 

asserting that Premium Merchant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s 

Amended Complaint because the telephone number identified by Plaintiff was not residential in 

nature. ECF No. 13. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a district court to issue a protective order 

staying discovery during the pendency of a motion for “good cause shown.” Bowens v. 

Columbus Metro. Library Bd. of Trs., No. 2:10-cv-00219, 2010 WL 3719245, at *1 (S.D. Ohio 

Sept. 16, 2010) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)). As the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Sixth Circuit has often recognized, “[d]istrict courts have broad discretion and power to limit or 

Case: 2:18-cv-00377-GCS-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 08/06/18 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 106
- 2 -

stay discovery until preliminary questions which may dispose of the case are answered.” Bangas 

v. Potter, 145 Fed. Appx. 139, 141 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Hahn v. Star Bank, 190 F.3d 708, 719 

(6th Cir. 1999)). Furthermore, limitations on pretrial discovery are appropriate where claims 

may be dismissed “based on legal determinations that could not have been altered by any further 

discovery.” Gettings v. Bldg. Laborers Local 310 Fringe Benefits Fund, 349 F.3d 300, 304 (6th 

Cir. 2003). Federal courts and this district have routinely stay discovery pending dispositive 

motions. See, e.g., Allen v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., No. 2:17-cv-561, 2017 WL 518340 (S.D. Oh. 

Nov. 8, 2017); Martin v. Mohr, No. 1:12-cv-281, 2012 WL 5915501 (S.D. Oh. Nov. 26, 2012); 

Miller v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. 2:09-cv-0674, 2010 WL 2246310 (S.D. Oh. June 4, 

2010); Eberhard v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., No. 1:11 CV 834, 2014 WL 12756822 (N.D. Oh. Jan. 

8, 2014). 

To determine whether a stay is appropriate, “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, 2010 WL 3719245, at *1. “When a stay, rather 

than a prohibition, of discovery is sought, the burden upon the party requesting the stay is less 

than if he were requesting a total freedom from discovery.” Williamson v. Recovery Ltd. P’ship, 

No. 2:06- CV-0292, 2010 WL 546349, at *1 (S.D. Ohio February 10, 2010) (citing Marrese v. 

Am. Acad. of Orthopedic Surgeons, 706 F.2d 1488, 1493 (7th Cir. 1983)).

Premium Merchant respectfully requests that the Court stay such discovery or, in the 

alternative, enter a protective order that such discovery not be had, pending a ruling on the 

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. To allow such discovery to take place before that 

determination is made would impose undue burden and expense upon Premium Merchant and 

will not result in any prejudice to the Plaintiff or any other party. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00377-GCS-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 08/06/18 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 107
- 3 -

Accordingly, Premium Merchant respectfully requests that discovery be stayed or, in the 

alternative, that a protective order be entered.

Respectfully submitted this 6

th day of August, 2018,

/s/ James M. Doerfler

James M. Doerfler (OH # 59350)

Reed Smith Centre

225 Fifth Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2716

Telephone: +1 412 288 3131

Facsimile: +1 412 288 3063

Counsel for Premium Merchant Funding One, 

LLC

Case: 2:18-cv-00377-GCS-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 08/06/18 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 108
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 6

th day of August, 2018, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings has been filed electronically and is available for 

viewing and downloading from the federal courts’ Electronic Case Filing system. 

/s/ James M. Doerfler

James M. Doerfler (OH # 59350)

Case: 2:18-cv-00377-GCS-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 08/06/18 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 109