The ongoing legal battle between the state and Planned Parenthood, being played out in several courts as regulators seek to enforce restrictions that would close off all abortion access in Missouri, will Monday be argued in a telephone conference hearing.

U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes will consider a request from the state’s two Planned Parenthood-affiliated abortion providers to extend his stay of action in a case over requirements that abortion doctors have hospital privileges and that clinics meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery.

Enforcement of the law ended abortions provided in Columbia by Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains at the end of September. More recently enacted laws are threatening to shut down the last clinic in Missouri providing clinics, operated in St. Louis by Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, Inc.

Wimes on April 9 granted a 120-day stay of discovery, the process of receiving evidence and testimony in a court case, while Planned Parenthood pursued a waiver of certain for licensing an abortion clinic in Springfield. The stay expired Wednesday.

Planned Parenthood affiliates with Missouri health centers filed the underlying lawsuit in 2016 after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016 struck down similar rules in Texas.

U.S District Judge Howard Sachs in May 2017 issued a temporary restraining order to block the admitting privileges rule. But his action was reversed in September by judges on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who argued Sachs didn’t do enough to weigh the cost benefits of Missouri’s rules and sent the case back to the lower court.

Wimes, who is now presiding over the case, declined in October and again in February to issue preliminary injunctions to block the law. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in February turned down an appeal of Wimes’ October decision.

In the April order granting the stay, Wimes declined the request from attorneys for Planned Parenthood to hold the case in abeyance indefinitely until a similar lawsuit from Louisiana was heard and decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

At the time, the Louisiana case was not even on the high court docket for cases seeking a hearing. That motion has now been filed, the motion for an extension signed by attorneys Arthur Benson of Kansas City and Melissa Cohen of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America notes. The Supreme Court will rule on the petition for certiorari when its new term begins Oct. 1, they stated.

If Wimes won’t grant the extension, Benson and Cohen wrote, it should dismiss the case without prejudice, meaning it could be refiled at any time.

Planned Parenthood is dropping its challenge to waiver requirements for the physical facility providing abortions, they wrote. With the short time until the high court decides whether it will hear the Louisiana case, an extension is the best course, they wrote. The issues in the cases are almost identical, they wrote.

“Given these nearly identical issues, the Supreme Court’s disposition of June Medical Services is extremely likely to clarify, narrow, or alter the issues in this case,” Benson and Cohen wrote. “It therefore would be a severe misuse of the parties’ and the court’s resources to move forward with this case on the merits, including lengthy and costly discovery, prior to having the benefit of any further guidance from the Supreme Court.”

The state has no problem with dismissing the case but opposes an extension, John Sauer, state solicitor general, wrote in a Tuesday filing. Even if the Supreme Court decides to take the case, the earliest a ruling could be expected would be June, Sauer wrote.

“Plaintiffs continue to ask for a stay of indefinite duration, likely to be almost a year in length, based solely on the speculation that the Supreme Court might decide to review June Medical and might decide that case in a way that would render the law more favorable to them,” Sauer wrote. “As this court previously held, this is not a proper basis for an indefinite stay.”

When Wimes turned down the requests for injunctions, he ruled that the evidence had not been developed to show that the restrictions imposed by the state were putting too heavy a burden in the way of women seeking abortions. Without that evidence, he wrote, it was unlikely Planned Parenthood could win the case.

Sauer noted that in his opposition filing.

“This court has already held that plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits,” he wrote. “This court should not allow plaintiffs to delay the unfavorable final judgment that they evidently expect.”

In their response, likely to be discussed extensively during the hearing, Benson and Cohen note that the Supreme Court has stayed lower court rulings allowing Louisiana’s law to be enforced. The stay extension isn’t unreasonable, they wrote.

“The court has broad discretion to extend the stay in this matter in order to preserve the parties’ and the court’s resources pending further guidance from the Supreme Court on issues nearly identical to those raised in this case,” they wrote.