Stake Center Locating v. Logix Communications, No. 2:2013cv01090 - Document 72 (D. Utah 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order denying 66 Logix's Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 4/20/2015. (jds)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Stake Center Locating v. Logix Communications Doc. 72 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION STAKE CENTER LOCATING, MEMORANDUM DECISION Plaintiff, Case No. 2:13-cv-01090-TS-DBP v. District Judge Ted Stewart LOGIX COMMUNICATIONS, Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead Defendant. This matter was referred to the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). (Dkt. 23.) The case involves an alleged breach of a contract for provision of underground utility locating services. It is presently before the Court on Defendant Logix Communications’ (“Logix”) motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its disqualification motion. (Dkt. 66.). Analysis I. Defendant has not established good cause to stay the case. Logix argues that the case must be stayed because Logix moved to disqualify one of the law firms representing Plaintiff Stake Center Locating (“SCL”). SCL opposes the stay by pointing out that the proposed stay is unnecessary because, even assuming an irreparable conflict exists, the pending discovery will not be affected by it. The Court has reviewed the parties briefing on the matter. (See id.; Dkt. 69; Dkt. 71.) The Court has discretion to grant a stay of discovery pursuant to Rule 26. E.g. Moore v. Busby, 92 F. App'x 699, 702 (10th Cir. 2004). Here, Logix has not shown good cause to justify a Page 1 of 2 Dockets.Justia.com stay of the limited discovery still pending. The Court agrees with SCL that the outstanding discovery will not be materially affected by the conflict raised by Logix. Logix has apparently conceded that the Hagris and Henriksen depositions may go forward. Moreover, any discovery responses supplemented by Logix will not be affected by SCL’s counsel’s purported conflict. Logix argues that it should not be required to disclose sensitive documents to SCL’s counsel. (Dkt. 66.) This argument is puzzling given Logix previous argument that Parsons Behle should be disqualified because one of their attorneys already has sensitive information about Logix. Even assuming a conflict exists, the Court cannot find on the facts presented that such conflict will be exacerbated by the document production previously ordered. Finally, the Court finds that the Stone deposition will not be materially affected by the purported conflict because Mr. Stone is a third-party witness. Logix has not offered any specific harm that will be caused by moving forward with the Stone deposition. Instead, Logix indicates they refused to go forward “given the clear conflict” of Parsons Behle. The Court has no information on which it could find that this deposition will be materially adversely affected if Mr. Bell takes it on behalf of SCL. Order Based on the foregoing, Logix’s motion to stay (Dkt. 66.) is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 20th day of April, 2014. By the Court: Dustin B. Pead United States Magistrate Judge Page 2 of 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.
