![]() The Vice Chancellor also noted that scheduling issues had been an issue over the course of the matter, and the court had already urged the parties to adhere to the schedule. The court also reasoned that the risk to the plaintiffs was amplified by the defendant waiting a month between receiving the discovery requests and filing the motion to dismiss. ![]() This would be prejudicial to the plaintiffs and contrary to the parties’ agreed schedule. The court considered the specific circumstances of the case and noted that, if the stay of discovery were granted, the parties would have less than a month to conduct discovery. While these factors favored the defendant, the Vice Chancellor reasoned that the “twin goals of efficiency and fairness” required further inquiry. 1991) (Allen, C.), outlined three specific, non-exhaustive factors in favor of denying a stay, including 1) where the decision will not preclude further litigation, 2) where the plaintiff seeks interim relief, and 3) where the plaintiff may be prejudiced by delay because information will not be available in the future. Vice Chancellor Will noted that the court always has discretion to stay discovery and, citing In re McCrory Parent Corp. ![]() The court focused on the parties’ responsibility to adhere to the discovery schedule to which they previously agreed. In “he unique circumstances of this case,” however, the Court of Chancery denied a stay. 8, 2021)ĭelaware courts often grant a motion to stay discovery pending the resolution of a potentially case-dispositive motion to dismiss. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |