Standifer v. Broadmoon Development et al

Filing 41

MEMORANUM AND ORDER- Defendant's Motion for Protective Order and Stay of Discovery (Filing No. 27 ) is provisionally granted. Discovery is stayed pending resolution of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The court may lift the stay if, upon more careful review of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, it determines that discovery is necessary to the resolution of this matter. Plaintiffs Motion to Request Deadline Extensions (Filing No. 30 ) and Motion to Compel Disclosure (Filing No. 31 ) are denied as moot. Plaintiffs Motion in Opposition to Motion for Protective Order (Filing No. 37 ) is denied. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
STEVEN STANDIFER,
Plaintiff,
v.
BROADMOOR DEVELOPMENT,
Inc.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:12CV176

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order and
Stay of Discovery. (Filing No. 27.) Defendant argues this court should stay discovery
pending the resolution of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff has
opposed the Motion. (Filing Nos. 30, 31, and 37.)
A district court has the authority to stay discovery pending its resolution of any
dispositive motion. See e.g., Hess v. CitiBank, 459 F.3d 837, 846 (8th Cir. 2006)
(affirming order staying discovery pending resolution of a summary judgment motion
and holding that certain legal issues are suitable for resolution without discovery);
Winslow v. Smith, No. 4:09-CV-3147, 2009 WL 2710105, at * 2 (D. Neb. 2009) (staying
discovery pending resolution of a motion to dismiss).
Defendant has filed a dispositive motion seeking summary judgment on Plaintiff’s
claims because, according to Defendant, Plaintiff has signed an agreement releasing
Defendant from liability in this matter. In addition, Defendant argues none of Plaintiff’s
discovery requests are relevant or material to Defendant’s pending Motion for Summary
Judgment. Plaintiff’s sole argument in opposition to Defendant’s Motion is that the
court should deny the Motion because Defendant missed the deadline to respond or
otherwise contest Plaintiff’s discovery requests. However, Plaintiff’s argument is
unavailing, as Defendant timely filed its Motion for Protective Order.

Defendant seeks summary judgment on the enforceability of a release of claims,
which requires only that this court look at the language of the agreement itself and the
admissions made by Plaintiff in a prior legal proceeding. Plaintiff has not argued that
discovery is needed to respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. In
addition, the court has reviewed Plaintiff’s discovery requests and it agrees with
Defendant that they are not relevant or material to Defendant’s pending Motion for
Summary Judgment. (See Filing No. 29.) For these reasons, the court finds the
arguments raised in the Motion for Summary Judgment may be resolved without
discovery.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order and Stay of Discovery (Filing No.
27) is provisionally granted. Discovery is stayed pending resolution of Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment. The court may lift the stay if, upon more careful review
of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, it determines that discovery is necessary
to the resolution of this matter.
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Deadline Extensions (Filing No. 30) and
Motion to Compel Disclosure (Filing No. 31) are denied as moot.
3.
Plaintiff’s Motion in Opposition to Motion for Protective Order (Filing No.
37) is denied.

2

DATED this 25th day of February, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ John M. Gerrard
United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District
of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide
on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court
accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work
or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

3