efficiency that fall within this court’s discretion. Rule 11 sanctions have several purposes, including streamlining court dockets and facilitating case management. See White v. General Motors Corp., Inc., 908 F.2d 675, 683 (10th Cir.1990). Defendant Hergert cited those same objectives in her motion for stay. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure give the court considerable discretion to manage the discovery process in a way that promotes the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 1. Rule 26(c) permits the court to enter any order “which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). Cf. Tilley v. United States, 270 F.Supp.2d 731, 734 (M.D.N.C. 2003) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 85 Fed.Appx. 333 (4th Cir.), cert.
holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion holding that entry of summary judgment while a motion for additional discovery was pending should be construed as an implicit denial of the motion for additional discovery holding that it was within the trial courts discretion to refuse any additional discovery and that the courts refusal to allow additional discovery was not an abuse of discretion holding that a protective order under rule 26c to stay discovery pending determination of a dispositive motion is an appropriate exercise of the courts discretion holding that a protective order granted pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 26c should not be modified absent a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need