Free Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07—cv—00674-SLR-LPS Document 49 Filed 05/16/2008 Paget 0f3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JOHN J. DOUGHERTY )
Plaintiff} g
v. J Civil Action No. 07-674-SLR/LPS
ALAN BLIZE and ASDI g
EQCORPORATED, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
a Delaware Corporation, )
Defendants. g
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDAN'I‘S’ MOTION T O STAY
Plaintiff iohn J. Dougherty ("Dougherty"), by and through his undersigned counsel,
hereby responds in opposition to Alan Blize ("l3iize") and ASDI incorporated’s ("ASDl” and,
together with Blize, "Defendants") Motion to Stay. ln support thereof, Dougherty states:
l. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. As will be set forth more thoroughly in Dougherty’s Answering Brief to
Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which will be filed Monday, Dougherty is
not voluntarily withdrawing his claim under l)elaware’s Wage Payment and Collection Act.
5. Admitted only that Defendants filed several motions. Dougherty also has filed
several motions including a Motion to Amend his Complaint and a Motion to Compel. As set
forth (or will be set forth) in Dougherty’s pleadings, this Court should not dismiss any of
Dougherty’s claims. Moreover, Dougherty has met his discovery obligations and, by contrast,
Defendants have failed to meet their discovery obligations. Thus, Dougherty should be

Case 1:07—cv—00674-SLR-LPS Document 49 Filed 05/16/2008 Page 2 of 3
permitted to advance his claims aided by an order from this Court instructing Defendants to meet
their discovery obiigations.
6. As will be set forth in Dougherty’s Answering Brief to Defendants’ Motion for
Judgment on the pleadings, Dougherty’s state law claims should not be dismissed.
7. Dougherty has agreed to delay depositions until this Court rules on his Motion to
Amend Complaint. However, Defendants have stated no good reason why Dougherty should be
prohibited from receiving appropriate responses to discovery already promulgated and engaging
in other discovery, as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Gerald Chamales
Corp. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc., 247 F.R.D. 453, 454 (D. NJ. 2007) (holding that moving party
must show good cause to stay discovery). Det`endants’ mere tiling of a nonaneritorious Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings is an insufficient basis for thwarting the process of discovery. See
id. (stating , "it is well settled that the mere tiling of a dispositive motion does not constitute
"good cause" for the issuance of a discovery stay").

Case 1:07—cv—00674-SLR-LPS Document 49 Filed 05/16/2008 Page 3 of 3
Respecttnlly Submitted,
CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ] LLP
Matthew F. Boyer (Del. Bar No. 2564)
Email: Mboye1·@cblh.com
Timothy M. Holly (Dei. Bar No. 4106)
Email: [email protected]
Josiah R. Wolcott (Del. Bar No. 4796)
Email: }[email protected]
The Nemours Building
1007 North Orange Street
Date: May 16, 2008 P.O. Box 2207
CBLH1 61*623 Wilmington, Delaware 19899
(302) 658-9141
Attorneys for John J Dougherty

Case 1:07-cv-00674—SLFi—LPS Document 49-2 Filed 05/16/2008 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
J OHN J. DOUGHERTY )
I Plaintiff, g
v. g Civil Action No. 07 -674-SLR/LPS
ALAN BLIZE and ASDI g
INCORPORATED, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
a Delaware Corporation, )
Defendants. g
Q..1L>.E.B.
ANI} NOW, this _; day of , 2008, the Court having considered
Defendant? Motion to Stay,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion be denied
IT IS SO ORDERED.


Case 1:07-cv-00674-SLR-LPS

Document 49

Filed 05/16/2008

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00674-SLR-LPS

Document 49

Filed 05/16/2008

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00674-SLR-LPS

Document 49

Filed 05/16/2008

Page 3 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00674-SLR-LPS

Document 49-2

Filed 05/16/2008

Page 1 of 1