Davis v. Retirement Plan of Phibro Animal Health Corporation and Subsidiaries and Affiliates et al, No. 3:2008cv00779 - Document 34 (S.D. Ill. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION, Denying 30 MOTION to Stay Discovery and District Court Proceedings filed by Prince Minerals, Inc., Retirement Plan of Phibro Animal Health Corporation and Subsidiaries and Affiliates, Phibro Animal Health Corporation, Prince Agri Products, Inc. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 4/13/09. (bkl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS CHARLES L. DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Case No. 08-cv-779-JPG v. RETIREMENT PLAN OF PHIBRO ANIMAL HEALTH CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES, PHIBRO ANIMAL HEALTH CORPORATION, PRINCE AGRI PRODUCTS, INC., THE PRINCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, and PRINCE MINERAL, INC., Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Defendants s Motion to Stay Discovery and District Court Proceedings (Doc. 30). Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss this action which is fully briefed and under consideration by this Court. In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants contend (1) that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for this ERISA action, (2) that, as a matter of law, Plaintiff claims in Counts I and II cannot be maintained against any Defendant other than Defendant Retirement Plan of Phibro Animal Health Corporation and Subsidiaries and Affiliates, and (3) that Count III fails to state a claim under ERISA. Defendants urge the Court to stay discovery pending adjudication of their Motion to Dismiss in order that they might avoid needless costs should the Court grant their motion in its entirety. The Court has discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and (d) to limit the scope of discovery. Such limitations can be appropriate when one of the parties raises a potentially dispositive threshold issue such as a challenge to the plaintiff's standing. See United States Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S. 72, 79-80 (1988). But a motion to stay discovery will not be granted every time a potentially dispositive issue is placed before the court. Here, Defendants believe that they will prevail on their Motion to Dismiss and, as such, do not wish to be put to the expense of complying with Plaintiff s discovery requests. However, it is far from obvious that Defendants s Motion to Dismiss will be granted, much less that a dismissal would be with prejudice. Furthermore, the requested discovery does not appear to be unduly onerous. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to stay Discovery, and DENIES Defendants s Motion to Stay Discovery and District Court Proceedings (Doc. 30). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 13, 2009 s/ J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
