Jackson (ID 77685) v. King et al

Filing 44

ORDER granting 38 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 1/31/2018.Mailed to pro se party (srj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ANTHONY JACKSON,

)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.

)

AMANDA KING and
KEVIN EDWARDS,
Defendants.

Case No. 15-3183-DDC
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER
Defendants have filed a motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 38) pending a ruling
on their motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 35). On January 16, 2018, the court
entered an order (ECF No. 43) extending plaintiff’s deadline for responding to the motion
to stay until January 30, 2018. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion to stay
discovery. The motion is granted.
D. Kan. Rule 7.4 provides that if a response to a motion is not timely filed, “the
court will consider and decide the motion as an uncontested motion,” and will ordinarily
“grant the motion without further notice.” Although the court could grant the motion to
stay 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 the court has recognized several exceptions
to this policy. For example, a stay of discovery 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; or (3) discovery on
all issues posed by the complaint would be wasteful and burdensome.2 The decision
whether to stay discovery rests in the sound discretion of the court,3 and as a practical
matter, this calls for a case-by-case determination.4
Upon review of the instant motion and the pending dispositive motion, the court
concurs with defendants that a stay of discovery is warranted until the court rules the
pending dispositive motion. Defendants claim they’re entitled to summary judgment in
their favor because plaintiff failed to exhaust mandatory administrative remedies.
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, if granted, would dispose of the entire case.
The court finds broad discovery at this point wasteful and burdensome.
1

See Kutilek v. Gannon, 132 F.R.D. 296, 297 (D. Kan. 1990) (“The general policy
in this district is not to stay discovery even though dispositive motions are pending.”
(citing case law)); Garrett’s Worldwide Enters., LLC v. United States, No. 14-2281, 2014
WL 7071713, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 12, 2014) (“[T]he general policy of this district is to
proceed with discovery despite pending dispositive motions.”).
2

See Citizens for Objective Public Educ., Inc. v. Kan. State Bd. of Educ., No. 134119, 2013 WL 6728323, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 19, 2013) (citing Kutilek, 132 F.R.D. at
297-98).
3

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.”).
4

Citizens for Objective Public Educ., Inc., 2013 WL 6728323, at *1.

Nothing in this order, however, should be read to preclude plaintiff from
requesting targeted discovery as contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Should plaintiff
believe such targeted discovery is necessary to allow him to adequately respond to the
dispositive motion, he should file a Rule 56(d) motion for consideration by the presiding
U.S. District Judge.
In consideration of the foregoing, and upon good cause shown,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion to stay discovery (ECF No.
38) is granted. If defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied, within 14 days of
the decision, the parties shall confer and file a joint motion containing their (joint or
respective) proposed amendments to the scheduling order (ECF No. 39).
Plaintiff is hereby informed that, within 14 days after he is served with a copy of
this order, he may, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and D. Kan. Rule 72.1.4(a) file written
objections to this order by filing a motion to review this order. Plaintiff must file any
objections within the 14-day period if he wants to have appellate review of this order. If
plaintiff does not timely file his objections, no court will allow appellate review.
Dated January 31, 2018, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ James P. O’Hara
James P. O’Hara
U.S. Magistrate Judge