Catron v. Colt Energy Inc et al

Filing 63

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 52 Motion to Stay Discovery; finding as moot 52 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 6/23/14. (df)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
RICHARD CATRON, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
COLT ENERGY, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 13-4073-CM-KGG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants’ “Motion to Stay Discovery or,
Alternatively, Motion for Protective Order” (Doc. 52), seeking an Order from the
Court staying discovery until the District Court rules on Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 50) or, in the alternative, entering a Rule 26 Protective Order that
Defendants need not respond to discovery “until two weeks after the Court rules on
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss . . . .” (Doc. 53, at 7.) For the reasons set forth
below, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.
It is the general policy of this District not to stay discovery, notwithstanding
the existence of pending dispositive motions. Wolf v. United States, 157 F.R.D.
494, 495 (D. Kan. 1994). Four exceptions to this policy have been recognized:
(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.
Citizens for Objective Public Educ. Inc. v. Kansas State Bd. of Educ, No.
1304119-KHV, 2013 WL 6728323, *1 (D.Kan. Dec. 19, 2013); see also Kutilek v.
Gannon, 132 F.R.D. 296, 297–98 (D.Kan.1990). The decision whether to stay
discovery rests in the sound discretion of the district court. Clinton v. Jones, 520
U.S. 681, 706 (1997); see also Kutilek v. Gannon, 132 F.R.D. 296, 297 (D. Kan.
1990); American Maplan. Corp. v. Heilmayr, 203 F.R.D. 499, 501 (D. Kan.
2001) (stating that a magistrate’s non-dispositive pretrial orders are subject to a
deferential, “clearly erroneous” standard).
As stated above, a Motion to Dismiss is currently pending before the District
Court. While the undersigned Magistrate Judge is not stating an opinion as to the
validity of Defendants’ motion or the viability of Plaintiffs’ claims, the Court is
satisfied that, should the District Court grant Defendants’ dispositive motion, the
case would be concluded. Further, because the pending dispositive motion is a
Motion to Dismiss, rather than a Motion for Summary Judgment, it will be decided
on the sufficiency of the Complaint, not the weight of factual evidence presented
by the parties. Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir.2009)
2

(citation omitted).
As such, the Court finds that requiring Defendants to respond to the
requested discovery at the present stage would be wasteful and unnecessarily
burdensome. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery.
Defendants’ deadline to respond to the discovery at issue is suspended. The
Scheduling Conference set for June 30, 2014, is cancelled, and will be reset
following a denial of the Motion to Dismiss.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ “Motion to Stay
Discovery or, Alternatively, Motion for Protective Order” (Doc. 52) is
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas on this 23rd day of June, 2014.

S/ KENNETH G. GALE

KENNETH G. GALE
United States Magistrate Judge

3