Free Motion to Stay - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01469-SLR Document 74 Filed O1/18/2007 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Stanford L. Burris :
Plaintiff,
: Civ. N0. O4-l469—SLR
v. :
Richards Paving, Inc.
Defendant
DEFENDANT RICHARDS PAVING, IN C.,’S
MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT
Defendant Richards Paving, Inc., (hereafter referred to as "Richards Paving")
hereby moves this Court to enter an order granting its Motion to Stay Execution of the
Judgment.
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 62(b), the Court has discretion
to stay the execution of or any proceedings to enforce a judgment pending the outcome of
a motion for new trial, motion to alter the judgment or a motion made pursuant to Rule I
50, see also Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc., v. Shering—Plough Corp., 106 F.
Supp.2d 696, 708 (D.N.J. 2000).
1. On December 5, 2006, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
2. On December 15, 2007, the defendant filed a renewed motion for judgment as a
matter of law pursuant to Rule 50 and a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant
to Rule 59. Currently, defendant’s post-trial motions are pending.
3. Plaintiff has also filed multiple post trial motions. Plaintiffs’ motions are still
pending.
4. On or about December 20, 2006, the Court entered final judgment in this matter.

Case 1:04-cv-01469-SLR Document 74 Filed O1/18/2007 Page 2 of 3
5. On January 16, 2007, plaintiff filed a notice of 30(b)(6) deposition in aid of
execution. According to plaintiff’s notice, the deposition is scheduled for February 9,
2007. For the reasons stated in this motion, plaintiff’s notice of deposition and any
motion to execute the judgment should be stayed pending the outcome of the post-trial
motions.
6. The Court’s decision on the pending post-trial motions will greatly affect the
execution of the judgment. For example, should the Court grant defendant’s renewed
motion for judgment as a matter of law, then any judgment would be moot. Thus, the
defendant would have to expend additional time and money to oppose a motion to
execute the judgment as well as attending a deposition that may be unnecessary.
7. Alternatively, the Court’s decision on the defendant’s motion to alter the
judgment will affect the amount of judgment that should be executed.
8. Plaintiff is not prejudiced or substantially harmed by a stay pending the resolution
of the post-trial motions since he also has post-trial motions that need to be resolved.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, Richards Paving respectfully
requests that this Court grant defendant’s Motion for Stay of Execution of Judgment and
stay of plaintiff’ s discovery in aid of execution.
ELZUFON AUSTIN REARDON
TAIELOV & MONDELL, P.A.
`2
wm K.
Matthew P. Donelson, ID #4243
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1700
P.O. Box 1630
Wilmington, DE 19899-1630
(302) 428-3181
Attorney for Defendant
Dated: January 18, 2007 Richards Paving, Inc.

Case 1:04-cv-01469-SLR Document 74 Filed O1/18/2007 Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Stanford L. Burris :
Plaintiff,
: Civ. No. 04-1469-SLR
v. :
Richards Paving, Inc.
Defendant
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of , 2007, it is
ORDERED that Defendant Richards Paving, Inc.’s Motion to Stay Execution of the
Judgment is hereby GRANTED.
It is further ordered that plaintiff’s notice of deposition in aid of execution is
hereby stayed until the post—trial motions are resolved.
IT IS SO ORDERED
J.