beyond initial proceedings. See Travelers Indem. Co., 914 F.2d at 1370. The instant action was instituted 27 days after the state action. Although defendants argue that the state action has proceeded far into the discovery stage, discovery has just begun and defendants have not yet replied to interrogatories propounded to him. (Dkt. # 8 at 11). While the Court notes that Leaver’s deposition has been conducted in the state proceeding, one deposition can hardly be the “substantial progress” envisioned by the courts when applying this factor. See, e.g., Nakash, 882 F.2d 1411 (recognizing that sub stantial progress had been made where a state court action had been pending for almost five years and over 100 depositions had been conducted); see also American Int'l, 843 F.2d at 1258 (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, the state proceeding has
holding that a district court judge to whom a case had been reassigned could grant the defendants motion for summary judgment after the previous judge had denied the motion holding procedural error is harmless where the court would have reached the same result had the guidelines issue been decided the other way and the sentence imposed would be reasonable even if contested issue decided in defendants favor holding that where a witness had been convicted seventeen years earlier but had been given probation and had not been confined the date of the conviction controlled holding that substantial progress had been made where the state court judge had decided seven motions holding that district court properly dismissed claims in  2241 petition that had been decided in previous habeas action