Finley v. Colby, Kansas, City of et al

Filing 45

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 37 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 2/15/18. (kao)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
LANCE FINLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-CV-1215-EFM-GLR

CITY OF COLBY, KANSAS, RON
ALEXANDER, and TOM NICKOLS, JR.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery.1 All
Defendants join in the motion, and Plaintiff does not oppose it. For good cause and the reasons
set forth below, the Court grants the motion.
Plaintiff filed this action on August 22, 2017. All Defendants then filed Motions to
Dismiss.2 In response, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.3 As a result, the Court found the
Motions to Dismiss as moot,4 and the Defendants subsequently submitted answers to the
Amended Complaint.5 The Defendants also filed pending Motions for Judgment on the
Pleadings.6 In their motions, the Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity. The
Defendants now request that discovery be stayed until those motions are resolved.
“The general policy in this district is not to stay discovery even though dispositive
motions are pending.” 7 However, there are exceptions to this general policy, including “where

1

ECF 37.
ECF 11; ECF 14.
3
ECF 20.
4
ECF 27.
5
ECF 29; ECF 30.
6
ECF 31; ECF 32.
7
Wolf v. United States, 157 F.R.D. 494, 495 (D. Kan. 1994) (citing Kutilek v. Gannon, 132 F.R.D. 296, 297–98 (D.
Kan.1990)).
2

the case is likely to be finally concluded as a result of the ruling thereon; where the facts sought
through uncompleted discovery would not affect the resolution of the motion; or where
discovery on all issues of the broad complaint would be wasteful and burdensome.”8
Generally, a defendant is entitled to have questions of immunity resolved before being
required to engage in discovery.9 The Supreme Court has also held that until the “threshold
immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed.”10 One reason for this is to
allow courts to “weed out” lawsuits “without requiring a defendant who rightly claims qualified
immunity to engage in expensive and time consuming preparation to defend the suit on the
merits.”11
In this case, the Court finds a stay of discovery is appropriate. The Defendants have
raised issues as to qualified immunity in each of their pending Motions for Judgment on the
Pleadings. Additionally, Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. Therefore, discovery will be
stayed pending the Court’s ruling on the Motions for Judgement on the Pleadings.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that the Defendants’ Unopposed
Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF 37) is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated February 15, 2018, at Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ Gerald L. Rushfelt
Gerald L. Rushfelt
U.S. Magistrate Judge

8

Id.
See Pfuetze v. Kansas, No. 10-1139-CM-GLR, 2010 WL 3718836 (D. Kan. Sept. 14, 2010) (citing Siegert v.
Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991)).
10
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 819 (1982).
11
Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991).
9

2