Green v. Kansas Department for Children and Families et al

Filing 19

ORDER granting 17 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 12/19/2017.Mailed to pro se party by regular mail (srj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MONICA A. GREEN,

)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.

)

Case No. 17-2551-JAR
)
)
)
)
)

KANSAS DEPARTMENT FOR
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
Defendants have filed a motion to stay discovery and other Rule 26 activities
(ECF No. 17) pending a ruling on their motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff has not
filed a response to the motion to stay discovery, and the time for doing so under D. Kan.
Rule 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 decide 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 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 caseby-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
defendants’ pending dispositive motion. Defendants assert they’re 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 customarily imposed upon those
1

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

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).
3

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

4

Siegert, 500 U.S. at 232–33.

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 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.

Defendants’ motion to stay (ECF No. 17) 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, the parties 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 December 19, 2017, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ James P. O’Hara
James P. O’Hara
U.S. Magistrate Judge
5

Id. at 232; see also Gallegos v. City and Cty. 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 v. Fitzgerald,
457 U.S. 800, 817–18 (1982)).
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)).