Moore v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al, No. 2:2017cv01379 - Document 102 (E.D. La. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 99 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 8/15/2018. (cg)

Download PDF
Moore v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al Doc. 102 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ROBERT L. MOORE CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 17-1379 TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, ET AL. SECTION “R” (5) ORD ER AN D REASON S Defendants Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North Am erica, Inc., and Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd. m ove to stay discovery and defendants’ discovery deadlines. 1 Defendants’ m otion is denied. A district court has inherent power to “control the disposition of the causes on its docket with econom y of tim e and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am . Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). This authority includes the district court’s wide discretion to stay a pending m atter to control the course of litigation. In re Ram u Corp., 90 3 F.2d 312, 318 (5th Cir. 1990 ). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), “a court m ay stay discovery for ‘good cause,’ such as a finding that further discovery will im pose undue burden or expense without aiding the resolution of the 1 R. Doc. 99. Dockets.Justia.com dispositive m otions.” Fujita v. United States, 416 F. App’x 40 0 , 40 2 (5th Cir. 20 11). Defendants state that good cause exists because plaintiff Robert L. Moore has failed to com ply with the deadline to furnish his expert disclosures set forth in the Court’s scheduling order, 2 and because defendant’s m otion for sum m ary judgment is pending. 3 Defendants argue that because plaintiff has failed to m ake his expert disclosures, plaintiff’s claims are unsupported and unspecified, and requiring defendants to m ake their disclosures “would cause [them] to incur unnecessary time and expense.”4 But plaintiff’s failure to com ply with the Court’s scheduling order does not transform defendants’ discovery obligations into an undue burden justifying a stay. Defendants m ay seek to com pel plaintiff to com ply with his discovery obligations through the usual channels while the Court considers the pending m otion for sum m ary judgment. 2 R. Doc. 72. R. Doc. 99 at 2-3. When defendants filed their m otion to stay, plaintiff had not yet filed an opposition to defendant’s sum m ary judgm ent m otion. See id. at 1. Plaintiff has since filed his opposition. R. Doc. 10 0 . 4 R. Doc. 99 at 3. 2 3 For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ m otion is DENIED. 15th New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ _ _ _ day of August, 20 18. _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 3

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.