WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, Jr., District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery and to Modify the Court's Scheduling Order [19]. Defendant's motion is unopposed and includes three requests. First, Defendant requests the Court to stay discovery until it rules on Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint. The first request, practically speaking, has been granted. It appears from the record that Plaintiff and Defendant have either refrained from seeking, or resisted the other party's attempt to seek, discovery pending the resolution of Plaintiff's Motion to Amend. The Court having ruled on Plaintiff's motion on November 3, 2004, discovery is now required to proceed.
Local Rule 7.1(B) provides that failure to file a response shall indicate there is no opposition to the motion. Defendant filed its Motion to Stay Discovery on June 18, 2004. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(B), Plaintiff's response to the motion was due July 6, 2004. Plaintiff did not file her "objection" until July 15, 2004, and her objection was filed without Plaintiff first seeking the Court's leave to file an untimely response or otherwise explaining her failure to timely respond to the motion. Accordingly, the Court will not consider Plaintiff's objection.
Second, Defendant asks the Court to further stay discovery until the Court rules on the applicable standard of review regarding its underlying benefits determination. (Mot. to Stay Discovery at ¶¶ 5-7.) Defendant asserts that the Court's resolution of this issue will determine what, if any, discovery is appropriate. In the interest of "judicial economy," Defendant requests that the Court stay discovery until this issue is decided. That there may be a question on the legal standard to be applied in a case is not grounds to delay discovery.
The Court expects the parties to conduct discovery in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Should the parties disagree regarding whether a particular discovery request seeks information outside the proper scope of discovery, and be unable to resolve their agreement after conferring in good faith, the aggrieved party may file a motion to compel or a motion for a protective order as appropriate. Neither party has filed such a motion, and to the extent that Defendant's motion could be construed as an invitation for the Court to address this issue in the abstract, the Court declines to do so.
Third, Defendant requests the Court to modify its February 23, 2004 scheduling order [9] to provide the parties with four alternative discovery deadlines based on the Court's rulings with regard to Defendant's first two requests. The Court having responded to Defendant's first two requests, the proposed modification is unnecessary and this request is denied.
Discovery in this case closed in June 2004. It appearing to the Court that the parties did not conduct meaningful discovery pending the resolution of Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, and to prevent further delay in the processing of this case, the Court directs that the case shall proceed as follows. Discovery shall resume immediately and close on December 22, 2004. Dispositive motions, if any, shall be filed on or before January 17, 2005. If no dispositive motions are filed, the pretrial conference shall be held on January 31, 2005. If one or more dispositive motions are filed, the pretrial conference shall be held on April 29, 2005.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery and to Modify the Court's Scheduling Order is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall comply with the revised discovery schedule set forth above.
SO ORDERED