Young v. Ultra-Chem, Inc.

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 22 Motion to Stay Deadlines. Plaintiff must appear for his deposition on June 19, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 6/17/2015.Mailed to pro se party Dennis Young by regular mail (mmg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
DENNIS RAY YOUNG,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-2592-CM-JPO

ULTRA-CHEM, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER
The pro se plaintiff, Dennis Ray Young, brings this lawsuit against the defendant,
Ultra-Chem, Inc., for employment retaliation.1 The case is before the undersigned U.S.
Magistrate Judge, James P. O’Hara, on plaintiff’s motion to stay his required deposition.
(ECF doc. 22). For the reasons discussed below, the motion is denied.
On June 9, 2015, this court entered an order granting defendant’s motion to order
the defendant to appear for a deposition.2 The scheduling order was also modified to
accommodate the deposition and the pretrial order.
The following day, defendant filed a notice that the deposition of plaintiff would
take place on June 16, 2015.3 On June 16, 2015, plaintiff filed the motion to stay

1

ECF doc. 1.

2

ECF doc. 20.

3

ECF doc. 21.

O:\ORDERS\14-2592-CM-22.docx

presently before this court. On that same day, defendant filed a notice that the deposition
of plaintiff would take place, per agreement, on June 19, 2015.4 Per the court’s prior
ruling, June 19 is the last day that the deposition can occur.5
Defendant’s notice of deposition was filed after plaintiff’s motion to stay.
Because defendant’s notice of deposition states that the parties were in agreement about
the deposition, it is unclear whether plaintiff still seeks to stay the deposition. In any
event, plaintiff’s motion to stay is denied.
Plaintiff asks this court to stay its order, and essentially reiterates the arguments he
previously set forth in his response in opposition to defendant’s motion for deposition.
The court already considered, and rejected, plaintiff’s arguments. The plaintiff also
references that he did not get to take a deposition, but fails to provide any further
information. For example, he fails to list who he wished to depose, and why such a
deposition did not occur. Nonetheless, there was nothing stopping plaintiff from taking a
deposition during the allotted discovery time, which has since passed. The discovery was
extended for the limited purpose of taking the plaintiff’s deposition due to the unique
nature of the events that unfolded when the deposition was initially scheduled.
For the reasons articulated by this court in its prior order (ECF doc. 20), plaintiff’s
motion to stay is denied.

4

ECF doc. 23.

5

ECF doc. 20.

O:\ORDERS\14-2592-CM-22.docx

2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s motion to stay his deposition (ECF doc. 22) is denied.

2.

Plaintiff is ordered to appear for his deposition set for Friday June 19 at
2:00pm as set forth in the notice (ECF doc. 23).

3.

The parties shall bear their own expenses and attorney fees incurred in
connection with this motion.

Dated June 17, 2015 at Kansas City, Kansas.

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

O:\ORDERS\14-2592-CM-22.docx

3