Lero v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 8 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 10/12/2012. (df)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
TEENA LERO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, Commissioner of
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-2160-KHV-KGG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 8).
Defendant requests a stay because of its pending dispositive motion. While
acknowledging that such relief is not generally granted, Defendant argues that the
summary judgment motion, filed before discovery began in this case but supported
to some extent by discovery at the EEOC, so clearly demonstrates their entitlement
to judgment that discovery would be wasteful. Plaintiff opposes the motion, and
argues that the EEOC discovery was limited, and points to a number of
declarations from undeposed witnesses offered to support the pending motion.
Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs requests to stay
discovery. Whether to stay or otherwise limit discovery is within the sound

discretion of the Court. In general the pendency of a dispositive motion is not a
sufficient reason to stay discovery. Dickman v. Dept. of Transportation, No. 112523-JTM-GLR, 2012 WL 940779 (D. Kan. March 20, 2012) (citations omitted).
The Court may grant such a motion “where the case is likely to be finally
concluded as a result of the ruling thereon; where the facts sought through
uncompleted discovery would not affect the resolution of the motion; or where
discovery on all issues of the broad complaint would be wasteful and
burdensome.” Wolf v. United States, 157 F.R.D. 494, 495 (D. Kan. 1994).
In the present case, discovery in this Court is not only uncompleted, it has
not begun. The discovery available in the agency process is not a substitute for
Plaintiff’s rights before this Court. The Court cannot find that allowing Plaintiff
discovery would not affect the resolution of the motion, or would be wasteful or
burdensome.
Defendant alternatively requests that discovery be limited to those specific
facts Plaintiff claims are unavailable without discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
Proc. 56(d). Although this rule may provide a basis for analysis in the Court’s
evaluation of the pending dispositive motion, the rule does not support limiting
discovery in this case where no discovery has been completed.
Defendant’s motion is, therefore, DENIED.

Dated at Wichita, Kansas, on this 12th day of October, 2012.
S/ KENNETH G. GALE

KENNETH G. GALE
United States Magistrate Judge