Ballout v. Law360 et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BENJAMIN BALLOUT,
Plaintiff, 	Case No. 25-cv-12939
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
v.
LAW360, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL A RULE
26(f) CONFERENCE (ECF No. 15); AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STAY (ECF No. 19)
Now before the Court are two motions: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a
Rule 26(f) Conference (ECF No. 15) and (2) Defendants’ Combined Motion to Stay
Case Proceedings (ECF No. 19).
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a Rule 26(f) Conference
(ECF No. 15). 	The Defendants have indicated that they plan to file a motion to
dismiss. (See Mot. to Stay, ECF No. 19, PageID.119.) 	The motion to dismiss, if
granted in whole or in part, could obviate the need to hold such a conference and/or
could impact the scope of the conference. The Court therefore concludes that it is
premature to schedule a Rule 26(f) conference.
The 	Court 	GRANTS 	Defendants’ 	Combined 	Motion 	to 	Stay 	Case
Proceedings (ECF No. 19). 	The Court believes the most efficient path forward in
Case 2:25-cv-12939-MFL-CI ECF No. 20, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/27/25 Page 1 of 2

2
this action is to stay proceedings pending resolution of the Defendants’ forthcoming
motion to dismiss because the resolution of that motion will impact whether this
action proceeds forward and the scope of the action (if it does proceed). Therefore,
these proceedings are STAYED with the exception of proceedings on Defendants’
forthcoming motion to dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 27, 2025
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on October 27, 2025, by electronic means and/or ordinary
mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
(313) 234-5126
Case 2:25-cv-12939-MFL-CI ECF No. 20, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/27/25 Page 2 of 2