Patel v. Reddy et al

Filing 338

ORDER denying 322 plaintiff's motion to stay case. Because the pending motion to quash is specifically directed to plaintiff 336 , the deadline for plaintiff to respond is extended until October 22, 2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 10/1/2013. Mailed to pro se party Kamal Patel, No. 56496-080, CI Big Spring, 2001 Rickbaugh Drive, Big Spring, TX 79720 by regular mail. (mb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
KAMAL K. PATEL,
and K & A MOTEL, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 10-2403-JTM

DAVID SNAPP and
WAITE, SNAPP & DOLL,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the court on the motion of pro se plaintiff Kamal Patel1
to stay the case during his transfer to the Eastern District of North Carolina on a federal
writ of habeas corpus (doc. 322). Defendants oppose the stay (doc. 332). Plaintiff did
not file a reply. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is denied.
Plaintiff moves for a stay because he will be “unable to keep the court apprised of
his proper address” and because “by the time he files an address change, he may be
moved to a different location.” Plaintiff’s court hearing is scheduled for September 30,
2013 and he expects to be returned shortly after September 30, 2013 to the Big Spring,
Texas prison. Defendants oppose the stay because they do not want the “discovery in
process, which includes depositions of key witnesses as well as the time for responses to
business record subpoenas issued by other parties to be adversely affected or halted dude
to a stay of the case.”

1

Reference in this order to “plaintiff” is only to pro se plaintiff Kamal Patel.

10-2403-JTM-322.docx

1

“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court
to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for
itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”2 Thus, the court has discretion to grant the stay
plaintiff requests.3 In exercising its discretion, the court “must weigh competing interests
and maintain an even balance.”4 The party requesting a stay “must make out a clear case
of hardship or inequity, if there is even a fair possibility that the stay [will damage
another party].”5 “The underlying principle clearly is that ‘the right to proceed in court
should not be denied except under the most extreme circumstances.’”6 Any stay granted
must be kept within the “bounds of moderation.”7
Plaintiff asks for a temporary stay of the case due to his transfer to another facility
for a September 30, 2013 court hearing in an unrelated matter. During his transfer,
plaintiff is concerned he will be unable to notify the court of his proper address.

2

Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936); see also Clinton v. Jones,
520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as
an incident to its power to control its own docket.”).
3

See Landis, 299 U.S. at 254; Pet Milk Co. v. Ritter, 323 F.2d 586, 588 (10th Cir.

4

Landis, 299 U.S. at 255.

5

Id.

1963).

6

Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Chilcott Portfolio Mgmt., Inc., 713 F.2d
1477, 1484 (10th Cir. 1983) (quoting Klein v. Adams & Peck, 436 F.2d 337, 339 (2d Cir.
1971)).
7

Landis, 299 U.S. at 255.

10-2403-JTM-322.docx

2

However, plaintiff expects to be returned shortly after September 30, 2013 to the Big
Spring, Texas prison.
Defendants do not want the discovery in process, which includes depositions of
key witnesses as well as the time for responses to business record subpoenas issued by
other parties to be adversely affected or halted due to a stay of the case. Defendants have
already scheduled or are in the process of scheduling ten remaining depositions.
Therefore, defendants ask that plaintiff’s motion be limited only to plaintiff’s deadlines
for responses to dispositive motions or other discovery specifically directed to plaintiff
himself.
Plaintiff filed this case on July 19, 2010 (doc. 1). Since that time, the scheduling
order has been amended at least three times.8 In the most recent amendment to the
scheduling order, the discovery deadline was extended until October 22, 2013 (doc. 334).
The proposed pretrial order is now due October 28, 2013 and the final pretrial conference
is not until November 5, 2013. The presiding U.S. District Court Judge, J. Thomas
Marten, has already extended the time for plaintiff to respond to defendants’ motion for
partial summary judgment until November 8, 2013 (doc. 328). There are no other
deadlines that directly impact plaintiff within the next month with one exception.
Movants Wilson and Grace Parmer and Peace, Inc. recently filed a motion to
quash or modify subpoenas issued by plaintiff (doc. 336). The deadline for plaintiff to
respond is October 15, 2013.

8

See Docs. 111, 269, and 334.

10-2403-JTM-322.docx

3

In the end, plaintiff has not demonstrated a “clear case of hardship or inequity”
that outweighs defendants’ interest in proceeding with this case. The District of Kansas
generally disfavors motions to stay discovery.9 Absent some compelling reason, the
court will not stay discovery.10 At this time, plaintiff has presented no compelling reason
to stay the case. Additionally, plaintiff has been transferred to other facilities in the past
and was able to file a change of address and participate in the case at the new facility.11
In consideration of the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion to stay the proceedings is
denied (doc. 322). Because the pending motion to quash is specifically directed to
plaintiff (doc. 336), the deadline for plaintiff to respond is extended until October 22,
2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated October 1, 2013 at Kansas City, Kansas.

s/ James P. O’Hara
James P. O’Hara
U.S. Magistrate Judge

9

Steil v. Humana Health Care Plans, Inc., No. 99-2541, 2000 WL 730428, at *1
(D. Kan. May 1, 2000) (citation omitted).
10

Id. (citation omitted).

11

See Docs. 278 and 279.

10-2403-JTM-322.docx

4