Coffman v. Kansas Department of Corrections

Filing 24

ORDER granting 19 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 1/4/2018. (srj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
KELLI COFFMAN,

)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.

)

Case No. 17-2381-JTM
)
)
)
)

THE STATE OF KANSAS, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
Defendant State of Kansas has filed a motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 19)
pending a ruling on its motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff generally consents to
the motion to stay, but alternatively proposes that the parties “nevertheless proceed with
some limited high-level discovery as it relates to the scope of information … available to
the litigants.”1 For the reasons stated below, the court grants the motion to stay in its
entirety.
It has long been the general policy in the District of Kansas not to stay discovery
even if a dispositive motion is pending.2

But four exceptions to this policy are

recognized. A 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
1

2

ECF No. 21 at 1–2.
See Wolf v. United States, 157 F.R.D. 494, 495 (D. Kan. 1994).

complaint would be wasteful and burdensome; or (4) the dispositive motion raises issues
as to the defendant’s immunity from suit.3 The decision whether to stay discovery rests
in the sound discretion of the district court.4 As a practical matter, this calls for a caseby-case determination.
The court has reviewed the record, the instant motion, and the pending motion to
dismiss.

The court agrees 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 claims are, in
part, barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Defendants are generally entitled to
have questions of immunity resolved before being required to engage in discovery and
other pretrial proceedings.5 Additionally, although plaintiff asserts that her Rehabilitation
Act claim is not subject to the Eleventh Amendment immunity defenses or otherwise
subject to dismissal, plaintiff does not oppose a stay of discovery “so that all matters at
issue can first be streamlined.”6
In light of the foregoing, and in the interest of judicial efficiency, the court
declines to implement the phased-discovery approach proposed by plaintiff—i.e., the
court finds the potential burden on the court, counsel, and litigants resulting from this
3

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).
4

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

5

Siegert, 500 U.S. at 232–33.

6

ECF No. 21 at 1.

piecemeal approach outweighs any potential benefit—especially where there is no
indication the facts sought through such limited high-level discovery would affect the
resolution of the dispositive motion, and where “substantive discovery requests” would
not issue until after the motion to dismiss is resolved.
In consideration of the foregoing, and upon good cause shown,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.

Defendant’s motion to stay (ECF No. 19) 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 4, 2018, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ James P. O’Hara
James P. O’Hara
U.S. Magistrate Judge