United States District Court, D. Minnesota
A. Newville, Madia Law LLC, (for Plaintiff); and Glenn S.
Greene, Brant S. Levine, David G. Cutler, and
C. Quast, United States Department of Justice, (for Defendant
N. Leung United States Magistrate Judge.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Pretrial Scheduling Order and Rule 16 Conference. (ECF No.
67). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the
Ifrah Yassin filed suit on July 29, 2016. (ECF No. 1).
Defendant Heather Weyker moved to dismiss on December 21,
2016. (ECF No. 22). The District Judge granted in part and
denied in part the motion. (ECF No. 47). Weyker appealed. The
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the
motion to dismiss and remanded the matter for further
proceedings. Farah v. Weyker, 926 F.3d 492, 503-04
(8th Cir. 2019).
remand, Yassin asked the Court to issue a pretrial scheduling
order and schedule a Rule 16 conference. (ECF No. 67). Weyker
filed a memorandum of law in opposition (ECF No. 70) and a
motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 74). In response,
Yassin filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56(d) (ECF No. 83), seeking to defer her response to the
summary judgment motion until after she conducted additional
discovery. (ECF No. 85). The District Judge denied that
motion on October 18, 2019. (ECF No. 93). The motion for
summary judgment is now scheduled to be heard on December 12,
2019, the same day that dispositive motions will be argued in
two related cases. See Osman v. Weyker, No.
16-cv-908 (ECF No. 120); Farah v. Weyker, No.
16-cv-1289 (ECF No. 76).
asks the Court to issue a pretrial scheduling order and set a
conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.
This Court has “wide authority and discretion . . . to
manage its caseload.” Wisland v. Admiral Beverage
Corp., 119 F.3d 733, 737 (8th Cir. 1997); cf.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(2) (permitting district court to delay
issuance of a pretrial scheduling order when justified by
good cause). This includes the authority to postpone or
otherwise delay proceedings pending a decision on a
dipositive motion. See Gerald Chamales Corp. v. Oki Data
Americas, Inc., 247 F.R.D. 453, 454 (D.N.J. 2007)
(noting that Magistrate Judges have discretion to decide
whether to stay discovery until decision reached on
are dispositive motions pending in this case and two other
related cases. The motions are set be heard on the same day.
It will be a more efficient use of the Court and parties'
time if these matters proceed on similar schedules.
Furthermore, the Court will be able to manage this matter
more effectively once it is clear what issues remain to be
litigated following the District Judge's decision on the
dispositive motions. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause
to postpone the Rule 16 conference and issuance of a pretrial
scheduling order until after the summary judgment motion is
based upon the record, memoranda, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
Plaintiff's Motion for Pretrial Scheduling Order and Rule
16 Conference is DENIED. The parties shall
contact the Court within 14 days following the District
Judge's ruling on Weyker's motion for summary