Sperry (ID 47031) v. Roberts et al

Filing 30

ORDER ENTERED: Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery and Related Rule 26 Activities 27 is granted. Discovery and related proceedings under Fed. R.Civ. P. 26 are stayed pending a ruling on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment 24 . Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 09/09/19. Mailed to pro se party Jeffrey J. Sperry by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JEFFREY J. SPERRY,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 18-3120-SAC

RAYMOND ROBERTS, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Stay Discovery and Related Rule 26
Activities filed by Defendants Goddard, Roberts, Heimgartner, Wildermuth, and Pryor (ECF No.
27). Defendants request an order staying all discovery in this case and other related Rule 26
proceedings until the Court rules on their Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary
Judgment.
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); see also Kutilek v. Gannon, 132 F.R.D. 296, 297-98 (D. Kan. 1990).
1

In this case, Defendants assert a defense of Eleventh Amendment immunity as well as
qualified immunity, and the Court grants the request to stay discovery. See Siefert v. Gilley, 500
U.S. 226, 232-33 (1991) (discovery and pretrial proceedings should not go forward until threshold
immunity question is resolved); Workman v. Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 336 (10th Cir. 1992)(where
defendant asserts qualified immunity defense, court should grant request to stay discovery pending
ruling on that issue).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery and Related
Rule 26 Activities (ECF No. 27) is granted. Discovery and related proceedings under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26 are stayed pending a ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 24).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated in Topeka, Kansas, on this 9th day of September, 2019.

s/_Sam A. Crow_____
SAM A. CROW
U. S. Senior District Judge

2