United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
ENTERGY GULF STATES LOUISIANA ET AL.
LOUISIANA GENERATING LLC.
RULING AND ORDER
D. DICK JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the Motion for Limited Stay
of Proceedings filed by Defendant, Louisiana Generating
LLC. (“Defendant”). Plaintiffs, Entergy Gulf
States Louisiana LLC, and Entergy Texas, Inc.
(“Plaintiffs”) have filed an Opposition,
which Defendant has filed a Reply. For the following
reasons, Defendant's motion will be GRANTED.
filed their original Complaint on June 23, 2014,
alleging losses from a series of business transactions with
Defendants. On December 18, 2014, the Court granted
the parties' request for a stay of proceedings pending
the outcome of a related case. On September 1, 2017, the case
was reopened by Magistrate Judge Richard L.
Bourgeois. Plaintiffs filed their First
Supplemental and Amending Complaint against Defendants
on November 17, 2017. Three days later, the Defendant filed a
Motion for Limited Stay of Proceedings pending the
Court's ruling on Defendant's Motion to Enforce
Compromise. On January 22, 2018, Magistrate Judge
Bourgeois granted Defendant's motion for a limited stay
of discovery “regarding the first, second, third,
fourth, and sixth claims [in Entergy's Amended
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
well-settled that a district court has inherent power to
regulate the flow of cases and “control the disposition
of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort
for itself, for counsel, and for
litigants.” This authority includes the district
court's wide discretion to grant a stay in a pending
matter. Here, Defendant seeks a stay “of
the proceedings except for discovery and pleadings related to
the enforcement of the compromise.” Plaintiffs,
in opposition, argue that the stay should not be granted
because, “the parties never agreed on settlement
terms.” When determining whether to exercise its
discretion to stay proceedings, “relevant factors for
the Court to consider include: (1) the potential prejudice to
the non-moving party; (2) the hardship and inequity to the
moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) the
judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding
duplicative litigation if the cases are in fact
these factors, the Court finds that a stay is warranted in
this case. Defendant has demonstrated prejudice if forced to
comply with the discovery requests for issues outside of the
enforceability of the alleged settlement agreement. Defendant
would be further prejudiced by not staying discovery on
issues other than the alleged settlement agreement - if the
alleged settlement agreement is enforceable there would be no
need for further discovery in the case. Plaintiffs offer no
argument that they would be prejudiced or why judicial
resources would be saved by delaying discovery for issues
other than those relating to the enforcement of the
compromise. Plaintiffs also offer no argument refuting
Defendant's claim that it would be prejudiced if forced
to comply with the discovery requests. Further, the Court
finds that a stay at this stage of the proceedings would not
result in a waste of judicial resources.
reasons set forth above, Defendant's Motion for
Limited Stay of Proceedings is hereby GRANTED.
IS SO ORDERED.
 Rec. Doc. 41.
 Rec. Doc. 42.