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)

Download PDF
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

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?