McDiffett (ID 51141) v. Nance et al
Filing
63
ORDER granting 60 motion to stay discovery and pretrial proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 3/19/2019. (amh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
SHAWN W. McDIFFETT,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES H. NANCE, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 17-3037-JAR
ORDER
Defendants Nicolaus Ball, Charles Nance, Lindsey Wildermuth, Irene Silva, and
Gay Savino, have filed a motion to stay discovery and other pretrial proceedings (ECF No.
60) pending a ruling on their motion to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative, for
summary judgment (ECF No. 58). Neither plaintiff nor the other named defendant,
Beverly Jackson, has filed a response to the motion to stay discovery and pretrial
proceedings, and the time for doing so under D. Kan. R. 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 decided 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.
O:\ORDERS\17-3037-JAR-60.DOCX
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 a
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 case-by-case
determination.
The court has reviewed the record, the instant motion, and the pending dispositive
motion. The court concludes that a brief stay of all pretrial proceedingsCincluding
discovery and the scheduling of deadlinesCis warranted until the court resolves
defendants’ dispositive motion. Defendants assert qualified immunity in the motion to
dismiss. Defendants are generally entitled to have questions of immunity resolved before
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, 297B98 (D. Kan. 1990)); Siegert v.
Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232B33 (1991) (“‘Until this threshold immunity question is resolved,
discovery should not be allowed.’” (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818
(1982) (emphasis in original))).
3
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997).
2
O:\ORDERS\17-3037-JAR-60.DOCX
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 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 narrow 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)
The motion to stay is granted.
2)
All pretrial proceedings in this case, including discovery, are stayed until
further order of the court.
4
Siegert, 500 U.S. at 232B33.
5
Id. at 232; see also Gallegos v. City and Cnty. 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, 457 U.S. at
817B18)).
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)).
3
O:\ORDERS\17-3037-JAR-60.DOCX
3)
Within 14 days of the ruling on the pending motion to dismiss, the pro se
plaintiff and counsel for any party remaining in the case shall confer and submit a Rule
26(f) planning meeting report to the undersigned’s chambers.
Dated March 19, 2019, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ James P. O=Hara
James P. O'Hara
U.S. Magistrate Judge
4
O:\ORDERS\17-3037-JAR-60.DOCX
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?