Requena (ID 48877) v. Roberts et al

Filing 92

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Defendants' motion to stay discovery (Doc. 88 ) is granted, and plaintiff's opposition (Doc. 89 ) is denied. Plaintiff is granted to and including January 3, 2020, to respond to the motion of defendants Crotts and Newkirk to dismiss or for summary judgment. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 12/10/19. Mailed to pro se party Adrian M. Requena by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

ADRIAN M. REQUENA,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 13-3043-SAC

WENDY NEWKIRK, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion to stay discovery
filed by defendants Crotts and Newkirk (Doc. 88) and on plaintiff’s
response (Doc. 89)1. Defendants seek a stay of discovery pending the
resolution of their motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for
summary judgment (Doc. 85). Defendants note that their motion rests
on grounds including the defenses of Eleventh Amendment immunity and
qualified immunity.
The District of Kansas has a general policy that a pending
dispositive motion does not require a stay of discovery. See Wolf v.
United States, 157 F.R.D. 296, 297-98 (D. Kan. 1994). There are four
exceptions to this policy, namely, discovery may be stayed if the case
is likely to be resolved through the dispositive motion; the facts
to be developed through discovery would not affect the resolution of
the dispositive motion; the discovery would be unduly burdensome; or
the dispositive motion presents issues concerning a defendant’s
immunity from suit. Citizens for Objective Public Education Inc. v.
Kansas State Bd. of Educ., 2013 WL 6728323, *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 19, 2013);
This pleading, titled as Opposition to Disnissal or in the Alternative Summary
Judgment, was docketed as a motion to stay.
1

see also Kutilek v. Gannon, 132 F.R.D. 296, 297-98 (D. Kan. 1990).
The Court has considered the record and agrees that discovery
should be stayed pending the resolution of defendants’ motion to
dismiss or for summary judgment. The argument offered by defendants
rests largely on immunities, and plaintiff has not identified specific
discovery that he seeks.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED defendants’ motion to stay
discovery (Doc. 88) is granted, and plaintiff’s opposition (Doc. 89)
is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED plaintiff is granted to and including
January 3, 2020, to respond to the motion of defendants Crotts and
Newkirk to dismiss or for summary judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 10th day of December, 2019, at Topeka, Kansas.

S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge