DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
DAVID KENDRICK,
5
5
Plaintiff,
5
2005-CV-0164
v.
5
5
THE HERTZ CORPORATION,
5
5
Defendant. 5
____________________________________5
TO:
Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
Chetema Lucas Francis, Esq.
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO STAY
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery
Pending Resolution of Defendant’s Appeal of Magistrate’s Order Dated December 4, 2007
(Docket No. 90) and Motion to Stay Referral to Mediation Pending Resolution of Plaintiff’s
Appeal of Magistrate’s Order Dated June 26, 2007[,] and Defendant’s Appeal of
Magistrate’s Order Dated December 4, 2007 (Docket No. 91).  Plaintiff filed oppositions to
each motion, and Defendant filed replies thereto.
The Court, having considered the matter, finds that a stay of discovery is not
warranted.  Whether the matter ultimately is transferred or not, discovery will proceed and
should not be delayed.  Defendant’s reliance upon McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Polin, 429
Case: 1:05-cv-00164-RLF-GWC   Document #: 107   Filed: 03/03/08   Page 1 of 3
Kendrick v. The Hertz Corp.
2005-CV-0164
Order Regarding Defendant’s Motions to Stay
Page 2
F.2d 30 (3d Cir. 1970) is misplaced.  There, the trial court delayed resolution of a motion to
transfer until completion of discovery.  The Court of Appeals decided that postponing
consideration of the motion to transfer was unnecessary.  Here, in the matter at bar, the
motion to transfer has been decided and now is on appeal to the District Judge.  The
posture of Polin is completely different from the one present in this case.  Moreover, one
of Defendant’s reasons for seeking a stay of mediation is the fact that minimal discovery
has occurred.  The Court acknowledges Defendant’s appeal of its order compelling
discovery.  Consequently, the Court will stay compliance with such order, but will allow
all other discovery to proceed.
Because Defendant asserts a need for additional discovery prior to mediation, the
Court will allow a temporary stay of mediation.
Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED:
1.
Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Defendant’s
Appeal of Magistrate’s Order Dated December 4, 2007 (Docket No. 90) is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
2.
Defendant’s compliance with said Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel (Docket No. 82) is STAYED pending resolution of Defendant’s
appeal of such order.  All other discovery shall proceed as usual.
Case: 1:05-cv-00164-RLF-GWC   Document #: 107   Filed: 03/03/08   Page 2 of 3
Kendrick v. The Hertz Corp.
2005-CV-0164
Order Regarding Defendant’s Motions to Stay
Page 3
3.
Motion to Stay Referral to Mediation Pending Resolution of Plaintiff’s
Appeal of Magistrate’s Order Dated June 26, 2007[,] and Defendant’s Appeal
of Magistrate’s Order Dated December 4, 2007 (Docket No. 91) is
GRANTED.
4.
Mediation in this matter is STAYED pending resolution of said appeals.
ENTER:
Dated: March 3, 2008
                                /s/                                   
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:05-cv-00164-RLF-GWC   Document #: 107   Filed: 03/03/08   Page 3 of 3