Cunningham (ID 86780) v. Franklin County Jail

D. Kansas

Cunningham (ID 86780) v. Franklin County Jail

DecidedSeptember 11, 2019

Docket5:19-cv-03042

StatusUnknown

This text of Cunningham (ID 86780) v. Franklin County Jail (Cunningham (ID 86780) v. Franklin County Jail) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cunningham (ID 86780) v. Franklin County Jail, (D. Kan. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

MICHAEL R. CUNNINGHAM II,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 19-3042-SAC

CURTIS HALL,

Defendant.

O R D E R This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 29) filed by Defendant. Defendant requests an order staying all discovery in this case until the Court rules on his Motion to Dismiss. The District of Kansas has a general policy that a pending dispositive motion does not require a stay of discovery. See Wolf v. United States, 157 F.R.D. 296, 297-98 (D. Kan. 1994). There are four exceptions to this policy, namely, discovery may be stayed if the case is likely to be resolved through the dispositive motion; the facts to be developed through discovery would not affect the resolution of the dispositive motion; the discovery would be unduly burdensome; or the dispositive motion presents issues concerning a defendant’s immunity from suit. Citizens for Objective Public Education Inc. v. Kansas State Bd. of Educ., 2013 WL 6728323, *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 19, 2013); see also Kutilek v. Gannon, 132 F.R.D. 296, 297-98 (D. Kan. 1990). In this case, Defendants assert a defense of qualified immunity, and the Court grants the request to stay discovery. See Siefert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232-33 (1991) (discovery and pretrial proceedings should not go forward until threshold immunity question is resolved); Workman v. Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 336 (10th Cir. 1992)(where defendant asserts qualified immunity defense, court should grant request to stay discovery pending ruling on that issue). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 29) is granted. Discovery and related proceedings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 are stayed pending a

ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: This 11th day of September, 2019, at Topeka, Kansas.

s/_Sam A. Crow_____ SAM A. CROW U.S. Senior District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

MICHAEL R. CUNNINGHAM II,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 19-3042-SAC

CURTIS HALL,

Defendant.

O R D E R This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 29) filed by Defendant. Defendant requests an order staying all discovery in this case until the Court rules on his Motion to Dismiss. The District of Kansas has a general policy that a pending dispositive motion does not require a stay of discovery. See Wolf v. United States, 157 F.R.D. 296, 297-98 (D. Kan. 1994). There are four exceptions to this policy, namely, discovery may be stayed if the case is likely to be resolved through the dispositive motion; the facts to be developed through discovery would not affect the resolution of the dispositive motion; the discovery would be unduly burdensome; or the dispositive motion presents issues concerning a defendant’s immunity from suit. Citizens for Objective Public Education Inc. v. Kansas State Bd. of Educ., 2013 WL 6728323, *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 19, 2013); see also Kutilek v. Gannon, 132 F.R.D. 296, 297-98 (D. Kan. 1990). In this case, Defendants assert a defense of qualified immunity, and the Court grants the request to stay discovery. See Siefert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232-33 (1991) (discovery and pretrial proceedings should not go forward until threshold immunity question is resolved); Workman v. Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 336 (10th Cir. 1992)(where defendant asserts qualified immunity defense, court should grant request to stay discovery pending ruling on that issue). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 29) is granted. Discovery and related proceedings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 are stayed pending a

ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: This 11th day of September, 2019, at Topeka, Kansas.

s/_Sam A. Crow_____ SAM A. CROW U.S. Senior District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cunningham (ID 86780) v. Franklin County Jail, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-id-86780-v-franklin-county-jail-ksd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack