United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. James U.S. Magistrate Judge.
the Court is the United States' Motion to Stay Discovery
(ECF No. 30). Defendant United States Postal Service
(“USPS”) asks this Court to stay all discovery
until the Court rules on its pending motion to dismiss (ECF
No. 28). USPS filed its motion on September 17, 2019. To
date, pro se Plaintiff Edward Hernandez has not filed a
response, and his time to do so has passed. Therefore, the
Court considers USPS's motion as an uncontested
motion. Although the Court could choose to
“grant the motion without further notice,
” it still considers the merits of the
motion, and for the reasons discussed below, grants the
filed this case on January 14, 2019 alleging employment
discrimination following an injury he allegedly suffered on
the job in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, the Age Discrimination Act of 1967, and the American
with Disabilities Act of 1990. His request to proceed in
forma pauperis was denied, but Plaintiff paid the filing fee
and issued summons. All defendants have now been served
except for two: Karen Ramcharan and American Postal Workers
Union. Plaintiff has been ordered to show cause why service
of the summons and complaint in this case was not made upon
these defendants. The remaining defendants are split into
two groups, with each group having filed a motion to
originally failed to file a response to the first motion to
dismiss, but after receiving an extension of time from the
Court, Plaintiff did file a response on September 20, 2019.
Plaintiff has yet to file a response to the second motion to
dismiss, filed September 17, 2019.
USPS asks discovery in this case be stayed pending ruling on
its dispositive motion because this case will likely be
concluded as a result of the ruling on the motion, and
discovery would not uncover new or additional facts that
would affect the resolution of the motion.
decision to stay discovery and other pretrial proceedings is
firmly vested in the sound discretion of the trial
court. The Tenth Circuit, however, has held that
“the right to proceed in court should not be denied
except under the most extreme
circumstances.” Therefore, the general policy in the
District of Kansas is to not stay discovery even when
dispositive motions are pending.
there are exceptions to this general policy, including
“where 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
considering the above factors, the Court finds a stay of
discovery is appropriate here. After reviewing the two
pending motions to dismiss, it appears likely that they will
be granted at least in part. Should they be granted in their
entirety, this case would be finally concluded except with
regard to the two defendants who have yet to be served.
However, unless Plaintiff is able to show good cause as to
why they have not been served ten months after Plaintiff
filed his complaint, the case will be dismissed as to those
defendants as well.
argues discovery would not affect the resolution of its
motion to dismiss, and without a response arguing otherwise
from Plaintiff, the Court agrees. The Court finds discovery
at this point would be wasteful and burdensome and not in the
interest of judicial economy or efficiency. Therefore, the
Court grants the motion and stays all discovery in this case
pending ruling on the dispositive motions.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that the United
States' Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 30) is granted.
Discovery and all Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 parties' planning and
scheduling requirements are hereby stayed until such time as
the District Judge rules on the pending dispositive motions
(ECF Nos. 23 and 28).