Woltkamp v. State of Kansas

Filing 10

ORDER granting 8 motion to stay discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 1/26/2017. (ah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
DESTINY WOLTKAMP,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF KANSAS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-2790-JAR

ORDER
Defendant, State of Kansas, filed a motion to stay discovery (ECF. No. 8) pending a
ruling on its motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff, Destiny Woltkamp, has not filed a
response to the motion to stay discovery, and the time for doing so under D. Kan. R. 6.1(d)
has run. The motion is granted.
D. Kan. Rule 7.4 provides: “If a responsive brief or memorandum is not filed within
the Rule 6.1(d) time requirements, the court will consider and decided the motion as an
uncontested motion. Ordinarily, the court will grant the motion without further notice.”
Although the court could grant the motion 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 four exceptions to this policy are recognized. A

1

See Wolf v. United States, 157 F.R.D. 494, 495 (D. Kan. 1994).

O:\ORDERS\16-2790-JAR-8-stay.wpd

discovery stay 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; (3) discovery on all issues posed by the complaint would be wasteful
and burdensome; or (4) the dispositive motion raises issues as to the defendant’s immunity
from suit.2 The decision whether to stay discovery rests in the sound discretion of the district
court.3 As a practical matter, this calls for a case-by-case determination.
The court has reviewed the record, the instant motion, and the pending motion to
dismiss. The court concludes that a brief stay of all pretrial proceedings—including
discovery and the scheduling of deadlines—is warranted until the court resolves defendant’s
pending dispositive motion. Defendant asserts that plaintiff’s Title VII claim is barred as a
matter of law and that defendant is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Defendants
are generally entitled to have questions of immunity resolved before being required to engage
in discovery and other pretrial proceedings.4 “One of the purposes of immunity, absolute or
qualified, is to spare a defendant not only unwarranted liability, but unwarranted demands

2

Id.(citing Kutilek v. Gannon, 132 F.R.D. 296, 297–98 (D. Kan. 1990)); Siegert v.
Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232–33 (1991) (“‘Until this threshold immunity question is resolved,
discovery should not be allowed.’” (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)
(emphasis in original)).
3

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997).

4

Siegert, 500 U.S. at 232–33.

O:\ORDERS\16-2790-JAR-8-stay.wpd

-2-

customarily imposed upon those defending a long drawn out lawsuit.”5 The Supreme Court
has made it clear that until the threshold question of immunity is resolved, discovery should
not be allowed.6 In addition, the court finds that a ruling on the dispositive motion could
narrow (or even conclude) this case, making discovery at this point wasteful and
burdensome.
In consideration of the foregoing, and upon good cause shown,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.

Defendant’s motion to stay (ECF No. 8) is granted.

2.

All pretrial proceedings in this case, including discovery and initial disclosures,

are stayed until further order of the court.
3.

Should the case survive the pending motion to dismiss, counsel shall confer and

submit a Rule 26(f) planning meeting report to the undersigned’s chambers within 14 days
of the ruling on the motion. The court will then promptly set a scheduling conference.
Dated January 26, 2017, at Kansas City, Kansas.

s/James P. O’Hara
James P. O'Hara
5

Id. at 232; see also Gallegos v. City and Cnty. of Denver, 984 F.2d 358, 361 (10th
Cir. 1993) (“A successful claim of qualified immunity allows a public official to avoid the
burdens of discovery and litigation, as well as liability.” (citing Harlow, 457 U.S. at
817–18)).
6

Siegert, 500 U.S. at 233 (“The entitlement is an immunity from suit rather than a mere
defense to liability . . . .” (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (emphasis
in original)).
O:\ORDERS\16-2790-JAR-8-stay.wpd

-3-

U.S. Magistrate Judge

O:\ORDERS\16-2790-JAR-8-stay.wpd

-4-