Balmer Fund, Inc., The et al v. Harper, Kansas, City of
ORDER denying 24 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 7/11/2017. (srj)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
THE BALMER FUND, INC. a Kansas
not-for-profit corporation, and
Case No. 17-1046-EFM
CITY OF HARPER, KANSAS,
The defendant, City of Harper, Kansas, has filed a motion to stay discovery (ECF
No. 24) pending the resolution of its motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 20). As
discussed below, the motion to stay is denied.
The decision whether to stay discovery rests in the sound discretion of the court.1
The Tenth Circuit has stated, however, that “‘the right to proceeding in court should not
be denied except under the most extreme circumstances.’”2 Thus, as a general rule,
discovery is not stayed in this district based merely on the pendency of dispositive
motions.3 The court has recognized that there may be exceptions to this rule, such as
Kutilek v. Gannon, 132 F.R.D. 296, 297–98 (D. Kan. 1990); Tennant v. Miller,
No. 13-2143, 2013 WL 4848836, at *1 (D. Kan. Sept. 11, 2013).
Holroyd v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, No. 06-4133, 2007 WL 1585846, at *1 (D.
Kan. June 1, 2007) (quoting Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Chilcott Portfolio
Mgmt., Inc., 713 F.2d 1477, 1484 (10th Cir. 1983)).
Kutilek, 132 F.R.D. at 297 (“The general policy in this district is not to stay
discovery even though dispositive motions are pending.” (citing cases)); Garrett’s
where: (1) the case is likely to be finally concluded via a 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.4
Defendant’s motion to stay references the above-noted exceptions to the general
rule disfavoring the stay of discovery, but makes no serious attempt to analyze them in
the context of this case. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to stay is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated July 11, 2017, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ James P. O’Hara
James P. O’Hara
U. S. Magistrate Judge
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.”).
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
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?