Eastman et al v. Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC
ORDER EXTENDING STAY OF DISCOVERY. See attached Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 4/14/2011. (aw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
BENJAMIN M. EASTMAN, as trustee of
other Eastman Family 1999 Revocable
Trust, et al.,
Case No. 10-1216-MLB
REFINING & MARKETING, LLC,
ORDER EXTENDING STAY OF DISCOVERY
On January 26, 2011 this Court granted the defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending
a ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Court denied the motion to dismiss (Dkt. 38), but
certified questions of law to the Kansas Supreme Court (Dkt. 39). The issues certified, if resolved
against the plaintiff, would be dispositive of this case. On April 5, 2011, the parties and the Court
conferred by telephone concerning whether to resume discovery in this case, or extend the stay of
discovery pending the decision by the Kansas Supreme Court. The Court invited the parties to
submit memoranda on that issue, and the Court has considered those memoranda.
Although staying discovery during the pendency of a motion to dismiss is generally
disfavored, the Court finds that in this case substantial preservation of time and resources of the
Court and parties can be achieved by extending the stay. Therefore, further discovery in this case
is stayed pending the decision of the Kansas Supreme Court. However, the Court is persuaded that
the plaintiff has a valid interest in completing the depositions of two previously noticed defense
employees (Mr. Alspach and Mr. Edens) to capture their testimony before the further passage of
time. Therefore, the deposition of these two witnesses is authorized. The Court is not authorizing
any other discovery at this time, including the completion of pending written discovery.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated on this 14th day of April, 2011, at Wichita, Kansas.
S/ KENNETH G. GALE
Kenneth G. Gale
U.S. Magistrate Judge
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?