IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR KNOX COUNTY, TENNESSEE 2 FILED Q7, -1119 Ll I2 ATLANTIC COAST CARRIERS, INC., GOLDEN CARRIERS, LLC, BLACHOWSKE TRUCK LINE, INC., and GLAZIER TRUCKS, INC., Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, . I_xf- Plaintiff, V. No. 2--190--l3 PILOT CORPORATION AND PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC d/b/a PILOT FLYING J, Defendants. MOTION TO STAY, MOTION TO QUASH AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Come now Defendants, Pilot Corporation and Pilot Travel Centers LLC d/b/a Pilot Flying I (hereinafter, "Pilot"), pursuant to Rule 26, Tenn. R. Civ. P., and move to quash and for a protective order with respect to two notices of deposition filed by the Plaintiffs. Pilot also moves for an order staying all proceedings. I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Before Pilot has even responded to the Complaint in this action, Plaintiffs have purported to issue four depositions notices (the "Deposition Notices") seeking to depose two of Defendants' senior employees, the con1pany's spokesperson and the company's CEO. Plaintiffs' proposed depositions are entirely premature and irnproper. As a threshold matter, it is well established that such discovery is not authorized prior to the filing of responsive pleadings absent Page 1 ofl9 leave of the Court under Rule 30.01 of tlie Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs never 'even sought leave of the Court to propound tl1e Deposition Notices, nor is there any basis for such pre~rcsponse discovery here. Moreover, Pilot has reached a global settlement with a group of plaintiffs in a related action currently pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (the "Global Settlement"). The Global Settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on July 16, 2013, proposes to resolve, on a nationwide class basis, all claims and causes of action arising out of Defendants' alleged failureto provide diesel fuel price rebates or discounts to Pilot Flying customers. The fairness hearing on the Global Settlement is scheduled for November 25, 2013. If ultimately approved, and to the extent Plaintiffs do not opt out of the settling class, the Global Settlement would resolve and extinguish all the claims asserted in the present case. The early discovery sought by Plaintiffs through the Deposition Notices would likewise be mooted and made superfluous. Thus, it would not serve the convenience of the parties or promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation to allow any discovery to proceed at this juncture. At a minimum, any proposed discovery should be deferred and this action stayed until after the fairness hearing on the Global Settlement and a determination whether the present case is still going forward. Even in the event the Global Settlement is not ultimately approved or does not otherwise moot the Deposition Notices, the present case and any discovery sought herein should be coordinated with other related pending cases. In the past three months, Pilot has been sued in at least eighteen related federal lawsuits (collectively, the "Pilot Actions"), each containing the same allegations and claims as the present action, namely that Pilot withheld rebates or discounts Page2 of19 owed to customers based on purchases of diesel fuel. The plaintiff in one of those federal cases moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate and transfer the Pilot Actions to the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division for coordinated. pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407. Pilot and numerous other plaintiffs, including a plaintiff represented by the same counsel as Plaintiffs in this action, support consolidation. In light of the Global Settlement, Pilot and certain of the plaintiffs have sought to defer the pending motion to consolidate before the JPML until after the fairness hearing. Hoxvever, if the Global Settlement is not approved, or to the extent there are any remaining related cases after final approval of the Global Settlement, Pilot intends to seek consolidation of any rernaining Pilot Actions. In those circumstances, in order to avoid duplicative proceedings, preserve valuable judicial resources and limit the burden on the parties, any pretrial proceedings in this case, including discovery, should be coordinated with the consolidated Pilot Actions. Finally, the fact there is a related criminal investigation currently pending further Weighs in favor of quashing the Deposition Notices and deferring any discovery in this case. H. BACKGROUND The Court is familiar with this case, having recently heard Plaintiffs' motion for temporary injunction or restraining order, which the Court denied. Pilot has not yet submitted a responsive pleading to the Complaint because the parties, by Agreed Order, agreed that Defendants shall have until August 22, 2013 to respond to the allegations of the First Amended Complaint. In the past three months, Pilot has been sued in eighteen related federal lawsuits, each containing the same allegations and claims as the present action, namely that Pilot withheld rebates or discounts owed to customers based on purchases of diesel fuel. A list of those Page 3 of 19 lawsuits is attached hereto as Exhibit A. All eighteen of these actions are in the nascent stages of litigation. There have been no answers or responsive pleadings filed, and there has been no discovery or rulings issued in any of the cases, other than orders granting extensions to file responses or stays. On May 30, 2013, the plaintiff in one of the Pilot Actions, Ohio Auto Delivery Inc. v. Pilot rave! Cem'er.9 LLC, l:13--cv--0l207, filed a motion to transfer and consolidate eight of the Pilot Actions in the Northern District of Ohio (hereinafter, the "Transfer Motion," attached hereto as Exhibit B). Nearly all plaintiffs in the Pilot Actions filed responses to the Transfer Motion, uniformly agreeing that transfer and consolidation was appropriate. Exhibit C, attached hereto). In the interim, nearly every federal court has agreed to stay the Pilot Actions in their jurisdictions pending a determination by the JPML on the proposed consolidation and transfer of the Pilot Actions. (See Exhibits attached hereto). Indeed, Plaintiffs' counsel here, who is also counsel to the plaintiff in one of the federal Pilot Actions, filed a response to the Transfer Motion, agreeing that consolidation was appropriate and requesting transfer to the Northern District of Ohio (the "Transfer Response"). Exhibit K, attached hereto). On June 21, 2013, Pilot also filed a cross-niotion and response to the Transfer Motion, agreeing that the Pilot Actions should be consolidated and transferred to a single jurisdiction but seeking to transfer the related cases to the Eastern District o_f Tennessee, or alternatively the Middle District of Tennessee. (fie Exhibit attached hereto). The hearing on the pending motion to consolidate and transfer was scheduled for July 25, 2013. On July 15, 2013, Pilot entered into a global, class--wide settlement agreement with numerous plaintiffs in the Pilot Actions, resolving all claims against Pilot on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs who purchased diesel fuel from Pilot (the "Global Settlement"). Page 4 of 19 Specifically, tl1e Global Settlement proposes to resolve the claims of the following class of plaintiffs: All persons and entities in the United States who purchased over the road diesel fuel for corn1ne1'cial use in Class 7 and Class 8 vehicles (as Class 7 and Class 8 are defined by the United States Department of Transportation) from Defendants Pilot Corporation and Pilot Travel Centers LLC dfb/a Pilot Flying pursuant to a diesel fuel rebate program or discount program (which rebate or discount program is defined as a cost-plus and/or retail--minus discount program (not to include discounts for payments made by cash, check, or major credit card at point of sale)), or both, from January 1, 2008 to July 15, 2013. A hearing on the parties' request for preliminary settlement approval was held before the I Honorable James M. Moody on July 16, 2013, and the court granted preliminary approval of the Global Settlement. (fie Exhibit N.) The court also scheduled a fairness hearing for November 25, 2013 (the "Fairness Hearing"). 1 .) The Global Settlement provides generally that Plaintiffs and Eligible Class Members (as defined in the Settlement) who do not opt out will be paid in full any funds that are found to be owed through an investigation conducted by Defendants' Internal Auditors plus interest at the rate of six percent An Independent Accountant, appointed by the Court and paid for by Defendants, will review the work performed by DIA and confirm, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that the work performed by DIA (1) properly identifies the Eligible Class Members who are entitled to compensation, and (2) accurately quantifies the amount of compensation due under the Settlement agreement. In addition, the Global Settlement allows a procedure for Eligible Class Members to contest their audit results in the event. they do not agree with the DIA analysis. Finally, Defendants agreed to pay for all administrative costs and legal fees. Page 5 of 19 In light of the Global Settlement, Pilot and the settling plaintiffs have sought to defer the pending motion to consolidate until after the Fairness Hearing on the Global Settlement. Amidst this background, Plaintiffs here have filed four notices of deposition seeking to take video depositions of two of Pilot's senior employees, Mark Hazelwood and John Freeman; Pilot's spokesperson, Thomas Ingram; and Pilot's CEO, Haslam (the "Deposition Notices"). Exhibit 0.) II. LAW AND ARGUMENT The granting or denying of a protective order relative to discovery procedures rests within the sound discretion of the Tenn. Dep't of Commerce and Ins. v. Inc., 931 S. W.2d 226, 230 (T arm. App. 1996). The trial court has broad discretion to limit discovery, including the sequence and timing of discovery. Rule 2602(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, that "[t]he frequency or extent of use of the discovery methods set forth in subdivision 26.01 and this subdivision shall be limited by the court if it determines discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount i_n controversy, limitations on the parties' resources, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation." To that end, Rule 26.03 allows the court, for good cause shown, to "make any order which justice requires to protect a party or a person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, that the discovery not be had; [and] (2) that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place. . . Moreover, Rule 26.04 permits a trial court to specify the sequence and timing of discovery "for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice," and Page 6 of 19 the court has broad authority to fashion appropriate limitations on the scope and manner discovery. A trial court should balance the competing interests and hardships involved vvlren asked to limit discovery and should consider whether less burdensome means for acquiring the requested information are available. v. Breon Lab0rm'0r1'es, Inc., 709 S. W.2d 559, 560 (Term. 1986). If the court decides to limit discovery, the reasonableness of its order will depend on the character of the information being sought, the issues involved, and the procedural posture of the case. See Price v. C0., 632 S. W.2rl 924, 935 (Tenn. Ct.-App. 1984). I For the reasons set forth below, this Court should exercise its broad discretion under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 26 to quash the Deposition Notices and stay these proceedings. E_ir_s_t, Pilot has not even submitted a responsive pleading to the Complaint, and as such the Deposition Notices are premature under Rule 30.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. by its express terms, the Global Settlement encompasses the claims made by Plaintiffs in thepresent litigation. Thus, the Global Settlement, if and when it is finally approved, may render this entire 'action moot. Accordingly, the Court should quash the Deposition Notices, defer discovery and/or temporarily stay this action pending the Fairness Hearing on the Global Settlement. any of the Pilot Actions not resolved by the Settlement Agreement will likely be consolidated by the JPML (as Plaintiffs' counsel here has requested), and as a result, the interests of judicial efficiency and economy support coordinating discovery in this proceeding with the related federal multi--district litigation ljiizfly, the pending criminal investigation further weighs in favor of quashing the Deposition Notices and deferring discovery in this action. Page 7 o'f19 A. The Depositions Notices Are Premature and Not Permitted Under the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure The Deposition Notices should be quashed because they are not permitted under Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Pilot has not submitted a responsive pleading to the Complaint, nor is it scheduled to submit one until August 22. Rule 30.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure clearly contemplates that, without express permission from the court, depositions will not be taken befo1'e a responsive pleading is filed: "Leave of court, granted with or without notice, must be obtained only if the plaintiff seeks to take a deposition prior to the expiration of 30 days after service of the and complaint upon any defendant. . Here, Plaintiffs did not seek leave of the Court and were not permitted to propound the Deposition Notices prior to Pilot's responsive pleading. Furthermore, the Deposition Notices are premature given the nascent stage of this action. Pilot's responsive pleading, which may include a motion to dismiss, could drastically affect the scope of discovery that is relevant in this lawsuit (or indeed could potentially moot the need for any such discovery). Likewise, deposing Pilot's employees, including senior executives and its CEO, prior to Pi1ot's counsel filing a responsive pleading could result in the inadvertent waiver of legal defenses and would be prejudicial to Pilot's defense. Plaintiffs cannot deinonstrate any reasonable basis why they need to take early discovery in this case, much less seek to depose senior Pilot executives and other witnesses before Pilot has even responded to the Complaint. Consequently, Plaintiffs' attempt to circumvent the procedure outlined in Rule 30.01 is improper, and the Deposition Notices should be quashed. See, Federated Rm*al_Elec. Ins. Exclt. v. Hill, No. 2007 WL 907717, at 1 Although more than 30 days have passed since Pilot was served, the parties agreed to extend Pilot's time to respond until August 22. Page 8 0fl9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2007) (affirrning the granting of motion to quash Notice to Take Depositions where defendant had not yet answered the petition). B. The Global Settlement Also Weighs In Favor of Quasliingjlie Depgsition Notices, Deferring Discovery and Staying This Case The pending Global Settlement further weighs in favor of quashing the 'Deposition Notices, deferring any discovery, and staying this case. As set forth above, Pilot has entered into the Global Settlement to resolve all claims brought against it in the Pilot Actions, which also includes the claims of Plaintiffs here. The Global Settlement has already been preliminarily approved by a federal court in Arkansas, and the Fairness Hearing is scheduled for November 25, 2013 to determine final approval of the Global Settlement. If the Global Settlement is ultimately approved, and Plaintiffs do not opt out of the settling class, the claims in this action will be resolved and this case dismissed with prejudice. The early discovery sought by Plaintiffs through the Deposition Notices would likewise be mooted and made superfluous. It would thus not serve the convenience of the parties or promote the just and effi cient conduct of the litigation to allow any discovery to proceed at this stage. At a minimum, any proposed discovery should be deferred and this action stayed until after the Fairness Hearing on the Global Settlement and a determination whether this Action is still going forward. C. Discove1'LShouId Be Coordinated With the Related Pilot Actions Even in the event the Global Settlement is not ultimately approved or does not otherwise moot the Deposition Notices and this action, any discovery sought herein should be coordinated with the other related pending cases. In light of the Global Settlement, Pilot and certain of the plaintiffs have sought to defer the pending motion to consolidate before the JPML until after the Fairness Hearing. However, if the Global Settlement is not approved, or to the extent there are any remaining related cases after final approval of the Global Settlement, Pilot intends to seek Page 9 of 19 consolidation of any remaining Pilot Actions. In those circumstances, in order to avoid duplicative proceedings, preserve valuable judicial resources and limit the burden on the parties, any pretrial proceedings in this action, including discovery, should be coordinated with the consolidated MDL proceedings. Otherwise, the parties will spend unnecessary time and money answering written discovery and conducting depositions haphazardly on the same facts that are at issue in all the other lawsuitsz Coordination of discovery among cases pending in state court with those in federal inultidistrict litigation is not only permitted, it is encouraged. For example, Mriziriging Mass Tort' Cases.' A Resource Book for State Trial Court Jiidges, published by The Mass Tort Litigation Committee of the Conference of Chief Justices, advises interaction and coordination between state and federal courts in the mass tort and MDL setting, particularly with regard to discovery. Sirnilarly, the Complex Litigatioii (Fozmh), 20.31, 22.4 (2004), that, for the federal MDL court, "it is best to communicate with state and judicial counterparts at an early stage to begin coordinating such cases," and encourages coordination with state court judges with respect to all phases of the litigation, including pretrial niotions and hearings and pretrial discovery. In addition, Managing Litigatioii in Proditets Liability Cases: A Pocket Guide for Judges (2011), provides that coordination between the MDL court and state courts is preferred: "Discovery is quite amenable to coordination. Depending on the progress of the state litigation, some aspects of discovery in state cases may in some instances serve as the basis for nat.ional discovery or vice versa." id; at 25. 2 This is particularly true with respect to the depositions of Pilot's CEO and its spokesperson, neither of whom has been identified as having knowledge of or being invoived in the activities that form the basis of the Complaint. figs generally, Bush v. Dicrapiione 16] F.3d 363 Cir. 1998) (upholding trial court's "order prohibiting deposition of corporatioifs CEO and limiting depositions of other corporate officers when no direct evidence existed of their involvement in the claims and the depositions appeared to be "fishing expeditions"). Page 10 of 19 Indeed, there are numerous examples of state courts coordinating discovery and other matters with the federal courts in MDL cases. S_ee In re Breast Implant Cases, 84 7 P.2d 772, 773 (Old. 1993) (appointing a coordinating state court judge to 'handle state court breast implant cases and authorizing the judge to coordinate state court discovery with the federal court in the MDL case); Toledo v. Merlical Eng. Corp., 2000 WL 3364213 (Pa. Dec. 29, .2000) (noting that the state court had stayed discovery pending settlement negotiations in related federal court cases); Employers Mitt. Cris. Co. v. Holman Bldg. Co., LLC, 84 So.3d 856, 862 (Ala. 2011) (noting that the trial court had coordinated case management with the federal MDL court). If any Pilot Actions that remain after the final approval of the Settlement Agreement are consolidated, a scheduling order will be entered, which will set forth, amongst other things, procedures for: (1) expediting disposition of the action, (2) discouraging wasteful pretrial activities, (3) limiting the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, complete discovery and file motions, (4) setting forth the order and timing of discovery, (5) avoiding unnecessary proof and cumulative evidence, (6) adopting special procedures for managing potentially difficult or protracted actions that may involve complex questions and multiple parties, and (7) facilitating the just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. This will obviously result in increased efficiency for the parties and the Court in this case. Notably, numerous federal courts have already stayed the Pilot Actions in their jurisdictions pending the determination regarding consolidation and transfer, recognizing the risk of inconsistent pretrial rulings, substantial duplication of effort and a waste of resources. (gee Exhibits D, E, F, G, H, and Plaintiffs' counsel here is also plaintiff' counsel in a case styled v. Pilot Corpomtion. and Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, Page 11 of 19 Docket No. pending in the United States District Court of New Hampshire. The allegations set forth by plaintiffs counsel in the Woorlwarrl litigation are, for all practical purposes, identical to those in the instant case and the 17 other lawsuits filed against Pilot. In addition to filing the initial Woorls-mm! complaint, Plaintiffs' counsel here and in the case has also filed a response to the IVJDL transfer and consolidation proceedings seeking to have the federal cases transferred to the Northern District of Ohio. Exhibit K.) In that Im'eresz'ed Part)>> Response Supporfing Transfer and Coordination of Actions in the Northern Dz'sz'rict of Ohio ("Interested Party Response") (See Exhibit K), plaintiffs counsel moves the JPMI, for an "order to transfer all actions identified in the schedule of actions and any tag along. actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio." (Emphasis added). In support of its motion in the Woarlward case, plaintiffs counsel states: When civil actions involving one or more coinrnon questions of fact are pending in different districts, such actions may be transferred to any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Such transfers shall be made by the judicial panel on inultidistrict litigation authorized by this section upon its determination that transfers for such proceedings will be for the convenience of parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions. Further, as set forth by plaintiffs counsel: Consolidation is especially innportant in multidistrict litigations where "the potential for conflicting, disorderly, chaotic" action is greatest. Transfer of related actions to a single district for pretrial proceedings avoids conflicting pretrial discovery and ensures uniform and expeditious treatment in the pretrial procedures. lvioreover, the Panel "considers that eliminating duplicate discovery in similar cases, avoiding conflicting judicial rulings, and conserving valuable judicial resources are sound reasons for centralizing pretrial proceedings" Id. at 2-3. Page 12 of I 9 Thus, as even Plaintiffs' counsel admits, pretrial coordination of this action with other related actions is "especially important." As the claims and issues in the present action are nearly identical to those in the federal Pilot Actions, Plaintiffs' counsel can point to no reason why it is any less important to ensure coordination of discovery in this action with the discovery of the federal Pilot actions. Indeed, as Plaintiffs' counsel noted in its Transfer Response, coordination will: avoid conflicting pretrial discovery; (ii) ensure uniform and expeditious treatment; eliminate duplicative discovery in similar cases; (iv) avoid conflicting judicial rulings; and conserve valuable judicial resources. fin; Exhibit at 2-3. According, this Court should quash the Deposition Notices and stay all proceedings in order that this case may proceed, in discovery and all other pretrial phases, in tandem with the any MDL proceedings. D. The Pending Criminal Investigation Further Weighs in Favor of ()uashi11g_ the Deposition Notices and Deferring Discovery Finally, the allegations in the Complaint are also the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation by the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Certain Pilot employees have been criminally charged in connection with the allegations, and it is unknown whether additional criminal charges will be made. Courts overseeing civil ligation are generally sensitive to the pendency of a related criminal investigation and will stay such civil proceedings in appropriate circumstances. Bell v. Todd, 206 S. W.3d 36, 94 (Tami. Ct. App. 2005) ("the pendency of parallel or related criminal proceedings may provide a basis for postponing the civil proceeding"). in determining whether to exercise its discretion to stay a civil proceeding pending a criminal proceeding, a court must "balance the interests of the party seeking to postpone the civil proceeding against thepossible prejudice to the party who desires the civil litigation to go forward." Page 13 of 19 Here, any balancing of interests clearly supports staying this proceeding pending the outcome of the criminal probe. For example, if the discovery sought by the Deposition Notices were to go forward, the burden and potential prejudice to Pilot would be substantial: Pilot would be forced to simultaneously defend multiple overlapping cases at the same time. Indeed, the issues in this case are virtually identical to the criminal investigation and the federal Pilot Actions, all of which will likely either be settled or consolidated in the coming months. Allowing this case to proceed at the same time as the criminal proceeding and the federal Pilot Actions means that Pilot would be defending the same claims in three separate proceedings, and that its employees could be subject to three separate depositions on the same issues. See, 206 at 94. Additionally, Pilot employees and officers subject to civil discovery could be confronted with a situation where they are forced to exercise their Fifth Amendment rights against self--incrin1ination, thereby potentially prejudicing Pilot's position in the civil case. See, Baxter v. 425 US. 308 (1987). With respect to the proposed witnesses, there is also a substantial risk of undue prejudice and substantial interference with their rights in connection with the ongoing criminal investigation. For all the above reasons, Pilot moves the Court to stay all proceedings such that the instant case may proceed, in discovery and all other pretrial phases, in tandem with the cases in the rnulti--pa1ty district litigation. The power to stay proceedings "is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the cases on its docket with the economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Lrmdis v. North Am. Co., 299 US. 248, 254 Clinton v. Jones, 620 US. 683, 706 (I997). "Stays are frequently granted to avoid duplicative efforts and preserve valuable judicial resources." Teach v. Jackson Nrzt'l Life Ins. No. 99 Page l4 of 19 5182, 1999 WL 1044923, at *1 (ND. 111. Nov. 12, 1999); Dowler v. flied. Slzoppg, N0. 2:07- cv-<<848, 2007 WL 2907519, at *2 (SJ). Ohio Oct. 3, 2007) (finding a stay necessary where "case may possibly be transferred as part of an MDL case and the very purpose of transfers is to further judicial economy and eliminate the potential for conflicting pretrial rulings"). In federal courts in the Sixth Circuit and in other Circuits, "[w]l1ether to grant a stay of proceedings pending a final ruling of the MDL Panel on the transfer of a case is within the inherent power of the court." Fox v. Depuy Orthopoerlics, 1116., No. 2011 WL 6057509, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 6, 2011 accord Cooper v. 111cGmw-Hi]! Co., Inc, No. 3513-00913, 2013 WL 1785512, at fl11.D. Tenn. April 25, 2013). Courts traditionally weigh three factors to determine whether a stay should be ordered: (1) hardship to the moving party if a stay is not granted; (2) the judicial resources saved by avoiding duplicative litigation; and (3) potential prejudice to the non~1noving party. 1l/IcGmw- 2013 WL 1785512, at 2007 WL 2907519, at Each of these factors weighs heavily in favor of a stay of this case. Indeed, a stay in this action will ultimately promote judicial efficiency and lessen the burden on the parties, while not prejudicing Plaintiff. l_3_i_i;st, Pilot faces significant hardship if the proposed stay is not granted. As noted, this case contains the same factual allegations asserted in the other pending lawsuits. Without a stay, there is a significant risk of inconsistent. pretrial rulings, and there will be substantial duplication of effort and a waste of resources. 1'v1cGmw-Hill 2013 WL 1785512, at *6 (granting stay and noting hardship to defendant absent stay); Kaspar v. rlferck Co. Inc, No. 2006 WL 362793 7, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 11, 2006) ("More importantly, however, the potential risk of prejudice or hardship to [Defendant] by way of duplicative pretrial motions and discovery should these proceedings not be stayed is great"); Jackson v. M'erck Page l5 of 19 Co., 1116., No. 2006 WL 448695, at *1 (W.D. Term. Feb. 19, 2006) (granting stay and noting that, absent a stay, defendant faced significant risk of duplicative motions and discovery); accord, Jones v. Lewis; No. 2006 WL 1006881, or *1 (WD. emu. Apr. 17, 2006); accord, L.D. Ellis' v. illerck 8; Co., Inc" No. 2006 WL 448694, at *1 (W.D. emz. Feb. 19, 2006); accord, Cook v. 11/Ierck Co., 1110., No. 2005 WL 2789061, at *1 (WED. Tenn. Oct. 25, 2005). ?_e_c_gi1_d, a stay will conserve judicial resources and serve judicial economy. 2013 WL 1785512, at Jackson, 2006 WL 448695, at *1 (granting stay and finding that "having the pretrial issues decided in the MDL proceeding will best promote judicial economy and conserve judicial accord, Jones v. Lewfi, 2006 WL 1006881, or *1 (some); L.D. Ellis, 2006 WL 448694, at 2005 WL 2789061, at the requested stay will not prejudice the Plaintiffs. Indeed, Plaintiffs' counsel, as stated in the Interested Party Response, agrees consolidation of the Pilot Actions will promote the convenience of the parties and witnesses, will promote the just and efficient conduct of the actions, prevent conflicting pretrial discovery, ensure uniform and expedited treatment of pretrial procedures, conserve valuable judicial resources' and prevent the potential for conflicting, disorderly and chaotic action. .313; j_l1cGmw-Hill Co., 2013 WL 1785512, or *7 (noting that "any prejudice to [Plaintiff] would be minimal and far _less than the harm that could befall [Defendant] were the stay not granted"); Jackson, 2006 WI. 448695, at *1 (granting stay and noting that any prejudice resulting to plaintiff from stay would be minimal); Lewis, 2006 W1. 1006881, at accord, L.D. Ellis, 2006 WI. 448694, at Cook, 2005 WL 2789061, at Page 16 of 19 On the other hand, Plaintiffs can point to no prejudice they would suffer by staying these proceedings. This case is still in its nascent stages; Pilot has not even responded to the Complaint. See, Cooper J1/IcGmw-Hill Co., Incg. No. 3:13-00913, 2013 WL 1735512, at *7 Term. April 25, 2013); Jackson v. itierclc Ino., No. 2006 WL 448695, at *1 (W.D. Term. Feb. 19, 2006) (granting stay and noting that any prejudice resulting to plaintiff from stay would be minimal). CONCLUSION Pilot has articulated the specific grounds required under Rule 26 for quashing the notices of deposition and entering a protective order, as well as granting a stay of all proceedings. The depositions Plaintiffs seek to take at this time are premature, unduly burdensome and oppressive, given the procedural posture of the case. Plaintiffs cannot den1onstrate a need to take the depositions at this early stage of the litigation, prior to any responsive pleading, prior to any vvritten discovery being exchanged by all parties, during the pendency of a final adjudication of the Settlement Agreement, during a time when nearly every other case involving the same issues has been stayed pending consolidation, and during the pendency of an ongoing criminal probe. For these reasons, Pilot asks the Court to grant DejImo'om.s' Motion to Stay, ildotion to Quasi: and Motionfor Protective Order. Pilot has articulated the specific grounds required under Rule 26 for the notices of deposition and entering a protective order, as well as granting a stay of all proceedings. The depositions Plaintiffs seek to take at this time are premature, unduly burdensome and oppressive, given the procedural posture of the case. Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a need to take the depositions at this early stage of the litigation, prior to any responsive pleading, prior to any Page 17 of 19 written discovery being exchanged by all parties, during the pendeney of a final adjudication of the Settlement Agreement, during a time when nearly every other case involving the same issues has been stayed pending consolidation, and during the pendeney of an ongoing criminal probe. For these reasons, Pilot asks the Court to grant Defena'am's Motion to Stay, rl/Ioffon to Quash and Motfonfor Protective Order. Respeetfixlly submitted, Hodges, Doughty Carson, PLLC fiat-b Kristi M. Davis Attorneys for Defendants 617 W. Main Street Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 (865) 292-2307 Page 18 ofl9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and exact copy of the foregoing has been served upon the following: - Louis Andrew McE]roy, Ill, Esq. VIA US. The Law Office of Drew McElroy 1348 Dowel] Springs Boulevard Knoxville, Tennessee 37909 Mark A. Tate, Esq. VIA EMAIL Tate Law Group, LLC 2 East Bryan Street, Suite 600 Savannah, Georgia 31401 Robert Bartley Turner, Esq. VIA EMAIL Savage, Turner, Pinclmey Madison 304 East Bay Street Savannah, Georgia 31412 by hand delivery or by placing a copy in the United States mail, addressed to counsel, with sufficient postage thereon to carry the same to its destination. This the_ 9 dayofluly 2013. I-lodges, Doughty Carson, PLLC By: J. Harb Page 19 ofl9