United States District Court, D. Kansas
P. O'HARA U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
have filed a motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 17) pending a
ruling on their motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have not filed a
response to the motion to stay discovery, and the time for
doing so under D. Kan. Rule 6.1(d) has run. The motion is
Rule 7.4 provides: “If a responsive brief or memorandum
is not filed within the Rule 6.1(d) time requirements, the
court will consider and decide the motion as an uncontested
motion. Ordinarily, the court will grant the motion without
further notice.” Although the court could grant the
motion solely on the ground that it is unopposed, the court
will briefly address the merits of the motion.
long been the general policy in the District of Kansas not to
stay discovery even if a dispositive motion is
pending. But four exceptions to this policy are
recognized. A discovery stay may be appropriate if: (1) the
case is likely to be finally concluded via the dispositive
motion; (2) the facts sought through discovery would not
affect the resolution of the dispositive motion; (3)
discovery on all issues posed by the complaint would be
wasteful and burdensome; or (4) the dispositive motion raises
issues as to the defendant's immunity from
suit. The decision whether to stay discovery
rests in the sound discretion of the district
court. As a practical matter, this calls for a
court has reviewed the record, the instant motion, and the
pending amended motion to dismiss. The court concludes that a
brief stay of all pretrial proceedings- including discovery
and the scheduling of deadlines-is warranted until the court
resolves defendants' pending dispositive motion.
Defendants assert they're entitled to qualified immunity.
Defendants are generally entitled to have questions of
immunity resolved before being required to engage in
discovery and other pretrial proceedings.“One of the
purposes of immunity, absolute or qualified, is to spare a
defendant not only unwarranted liability, but unwarranted
demands customarily imposed upon those defending a long drawn
out lawsuit.” The Supreme Court has made it clear that
until the threshold question of immunity is resolved,
discovery should not be allowed. In addition, the court finds
that a ruling on the dispositive motion could narrow (or even
conclude) this case, making discovery at this point wasteful
consideration of the foregoing, and upon good cause shown, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Defendants' motion to stay (ECF No. 17) is granted.
pretrial proceedings in this case, including discovery and
initial disclosures, are stayed until further order of the
Should the case survive the pending amended motion to
dismiss, the parties shall confer and submit a Rule 26(f)
planning meeting report to the undersigned's chambers
within 14 days of the ruling on the motion. The court will
then promptly set a scheduling conference.
 Although the motion to stay references
defendant's initial motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16),
defendants anticipated in their motion to stay the filing of
an amended motion to dismiss that “expressly raise[s]
the qualified immunity defense.” ECF No. 17 at 5, n. 1.
Defendants have since filed their amended motion to dismiss
(ECF No. 18), and the court has found the initial dispositive
motion moot. See ECF No. 19.
See Wolf v. United States, 157
F.R.D. 494, 495 (D. Kan. 1994).
Id. (citing Kutilek v.
Gannon, 132 F.R.D. 296, 297-98 (D. Kan. 1990));
Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, ...