Apsley et al v. Boeing Company, The et al

Filing 406

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 387 Pro Se Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Deadlines; denying 387 Pro Se Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel; granting 400 Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Deadlines. Discovery is stayed pending ruling by the Tenth Circuit. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen M. Humphreys on 2/9/2012. Mailed to pro se parties Henry F. Butler, Warren K. Pyles, Sharron James, Darlene Rozar, and David Clay by regular mail. (sj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

PERRY APSLEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE BOEING COMPANY and SPIRIT
AEROSYSTEMS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 05-1368-EFM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on two different (but related) motions to stay. First,
five pro se plaintiffs move the court for (1) an order “staying proceedings” and (2) an order
compelling their former attorneys to provide them with “all relevant discovery documents.”
(Doc. 387).1 The remaining plaintiffs, represented by Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr. and Uzo
L. Ohaebosim, also move for a stay of discovery related to the remaining individual claims
pending rulings on their interlocutory appeal to the Tenth Circuit. (Doc. 400). Defendants
oppose the pro se plaintiffs’ request to compel all discovery documents, arguing that many
of the discovery documents have no relevance to the pro se plaintiffs’ individual claims.
Defendants also object to a stay of “all” proceedings but agree that a stay of discovery is
1

The five pro se plaintiffs are Henry F. Butler, Warren K. Pyles, Sharron James,
Darlene Rozar, and David Clay. Their former attorneys are Lawrence W. Williamson,
Jr., and Uzo L. Ohaebosim. Mr. Williamson and Mr. Ohaebosim represent the remaining
named plaintiffs individually and are seeking class certification.

appropriate. For the reasons set forth below, the motions shall be GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.
With respect to the pro se plaintiffs’ request to “stay proceedings,” this court has no
authority to issue orders concerning matters that are the subject of the interlocutory appeal.2
However, there are a number of individual claims that have not been appealed. The court is
persuaded that discovery should not proceed on the remaining individual claims pending
rulings by the Tenth Circuit because a piecemeal approach to the individual claims at this
time would be inefficient and counterproductive.
The pro se plaintiffs’ request to compel their former attorneys to produce “all
discovery” shall be denied because portions of defendants’ discovery responses were the
subject of a protective order that placed restrictions on the disclosure of the information.
Equally important, the pro se plaintiffs have not demonstrated that all discovery documents
are relevant to their remaining individual claims. Because the court is imposing a stay on
discovery, the resolution of these discovery issues is unnecessary at this time.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the pro se plaintiffs’ motion to “stay
proceedings” (Doc. 387) is GRANTED IN PART and discovery in this case is stayed,
consistent with the rulings herein. The pro se plaintiffs’ motion to compel their former
attorneys to produce all discovery materials is DENIED. The motion of the represented
2

The interlocutory appeal divests this court of jurisdiction over the matters appealed
to the Tenth Circuit.
-2-

plaintiffs to stay discovery pending rulings by the Tenth Circuit (Doc. 400) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 9th day of February 2012.

S/ Karen M. Humphreys
_________________________
KAREN M. HUMPHREYS
United States Magistrate Judge

-3-