First Lutheran Church v. St. Paul, City of, The
- John Tunheim
- 0:18-cv-00954
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In First Lutheran Church v. St. Paul, Judge Menendez stayed discovery until after a scheduled settlement conference.
First Lutheran Church and the City of St. Paul were affected because discovery in their case was temporarily paused, while representatives of both parties were required to review the order before the settlement conference.
What happened
First Lutheran Church sued the City of St. Paul. Before a scheduled settlement conference, the court considered whether discovery should temporarily stop. First Lutheran opposed a stay, while the City supported one.
The court was concerned that extensive discovery could impose unnecessary costs on the church and the taxpayer-funded City. It also noted that both sides had shown a genuine willingness to reach an agreement.
Judge Katherine Menendez ordered discovery stayed until after the January 3, 2019 settlement conference. If the conference was rescheduled, the stay would continue until after the conference occurred, and a representative of each party had to review the order beforehand.
The detailed version
- First Lutheran Church v. St. Paul, City of, The · No. 0:18-cv-00954
- John Tunheim
- Nov. 14, 2018
Background
The court asked the parties to address whether discovery should be stayed while they prepared for a settlement conference scheduled for January 3, 2019. First Lutheran Church opposed the stay through counsel's statements at the hearing. The City of St. Paul submitted a letter supporting it.
The court noted that First Lutheran had already noticed a large number of depositions early in discovery. It was concerned that continuing extensive discovery before the settlement conference could create unnecessarily high costs. The court emphasized that First Lutheran was a nonprofit church and that the City was a taxpayer-funded governmental entity, making litigation expenses potentially more burdensome for both parties. The court also noted that both parties had indicated a genuine willingness to reach an agreement.
Ruling
The court relied on its inherent authority to temporarily pause proceedings to manage its docket and promote a fair, speedy, and less expensive resolution. It determined that staying discovery was in the parties' best interests and could help them resolve the case without unnecessary expense or effort.
The court ordered that discovery be stayed until after the January 3, 2019 settlement conference. If the conference had to be rescheduled, discovery would remain stayed until after the conference was held. The court also ordered a representative of each party to review the order before the conference. This was a discovery-management order and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.