Turpen v. Arby's #5-6012

Filing 27

ORDER granting 25 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 8/9/17. Mailed to pro se party Laurel E. Turpen by regular mail. (kao)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

LAUREL E. TURPEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARBY’S #5-6012,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-2596-CM

ORDER
Defendant has filed a motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 25) pending a ruling on its
motion to dismiss (ECF No. 23). Plaintiff has not filed a timely opposition to the motion to
stay.
D. Kan. Rule 7.4(b) provides:
If a responsive brief or memorandum is not filed within the Rule
6.1(d) time requirements, the court will consider and decide the
motion as an uncontested motion. Ordinarily, the court will
grant the motion without further notice.
Although the court could grant the motion to stay solely on the ground that it is unopposed,
the court will briefly address the merits of the motion.
It has long been the general policy in the District of Kansas not to stay discovery even
if a dispositive motion is pending,1 but the court has recognized several exceptions to this

1

See Kutilek v. Gannon, 132 F.R.D. 296, 297 (D. Kan. 1990) (“The general policy in
this district is not to stay discovery even though dispositive motions are pending.” (citing
O:\ORDERS\16-2596-CM-25.wpd

policy. For example, a stay of discovery may be appropriate if: (1) the case is likely to be
finally concluded via the dispositive motion; (2) the facts sought through discovery would
not affect the resolution of the dispositive motion; or (3) discovery on all issues posed by the
complaint would be wasteful and burdensome.2 The decision whether to stay discovery rests
in the sound discretion of court,3 and as a practical matter, this calls for a case-by-case
determination.4
Upon review of the instant motion and the pending dispositive motion, the court
concurs with defendant that a stay of discovery is warranted until the court rules the pending
dispositive motion. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, if granted, would dispose of the entire
case. It seeks judgment as a matter of law, and is not dependent on any information that
would be gained through discovery. Accordingly, discovery at this point is unnecessary and
potentially wasteful.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 25)
is granted.

If defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied, defendant shall notify the

case law)); Garrett’s Worldwide Enters., LLC v. United States, No. 14-2281, 2014 WL
7071713, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 12, 2014) (“[T]he general policy of this district is to proceed
with discovery despite pending dispositive motions.”).
2

See Citizens for Objective Public Educ., Inc. v. Kan. State Bd. of Educ., No. 13-4119,
2013 WL 6728323, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 19, 2013) (citing Kutilek, 132 F.R.D. at 297-98).
3

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.”).
4

Citizens for Objective Public Educ., 2013 WL 6728323, at *1.

O:\ORDERS\16-2596-CM-25.wpd

-2-

undersigned’s chambers within 7 days of the decision, and the undersigned will then issue
an initial order regarding planning and scheduling.
Plaintiff is hereby informed that, within 14 days after she is served with a copy of this
order, she may, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and D. Kan. Rule 72.1.4(a), file written
objections to this order by filing a motion to review this order. Plaintiff must file any
objections within the 14-day period if she wants to have appellate review of this order. If
plaintiff does not timely file her objections, no court will allow appellate review.
Dated August 9, 2017, at Kansas City, Kansas.

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

O:\ORDERS\16-2596-CM-25.wpd

-3-