Virgin Mobile USA, L.P. v. Pat Apple et al
ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 11/21/2017. (amh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
VIRGIN MOBILE USA, L.P.,
PAT APPLE, et al.,
Case No. 17-2524-JAR
ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY
The parties in this case have informed the court that they believe a stay of discovery
is appropriate pending the resolution of defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 22). After
reviewing the filings in this case, the court agrees.
The court may stay discovery if: (1) the case is likely to be finally concluded via a
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.1 The decision whether to stay discovery rests in the sound
discretion of the court.2 As a practical matter, this calls for a case-by-case determination.3
See Wolf v. United States, 157 F.R.D. 494, 495 (D. Kan. 1994) (citing Kutilek v.
Gannon, 132 F.R.D. 296, 297-98 (D. Kan. 1990)); Lofland v. City of Shawnee, Kan., No. 162183, 2016 WL 5109941, at *1 (D. Kan. Sept. 20, 2016).
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.”).
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).
Upon review of the pending dispositive motion and after considering the e-mail
submitted by the parties, the court finds that a stay of discovery is warranted until the court
rules the dispositive motion. Defendants’ 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 though discovery. Accordingly, discovery at this point is unnecessary
and potentially wasteful.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all pretrial proceedings in this case, including
discovery and initial disclosures, are stayed until further order of the court. If defendants’
motion to dismiss is denied, then within five business days of the decision, plaintiff shall
so inform the undersigned and request the issuance of an initial order setting a scheduling
conference and related deadlines.
Dated November 21, 2017, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ James P. O’Hara
James P. O’Hara
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?