Parks v. State

Full title: TIMOTHY O. PARKS, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Kansas

Date published: Aug 10, 2006

Civil Action. No. 06-2155-KHV-DJW (D. Kan. Aug. 10, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action. No. 06-2155-KHV-DJW.

August 10, 2006

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID WAXSE, Magistrate Judge

Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery (doc. 6). Plaintiff has filed no opposition. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the Motion and will stay all Rule 26 and other pretrial proceedings until the Court has ruled on the pending Motion to Quash Summons and Dismiss (doc. 5).

The Court finds that a stay is appropriate here under the factors set forth in Wolf v. United States. ¹ Wolf held that it is appropriate for a court to stay discovery until a pending motion is decided "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 burdensome."²

1 157 F.R.D. 494, 495 (D. Kan. 1994)

2 Id. (citing Kutilek v. Gannon, 132 F.R.D. 296, 297-98 (D. Kan. 1990)).

The Court also finds a stay to be appropriate given that Defendant's Motion to Quash Summons and Dismiss raises issues as to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Defendant is entitled to have questions of immunity resolved before being required to engage in discovery and other pretrial proceedings.³ "One of the purposes of immunity . . . is to spare a defendant not only unwarranted liability, but unwarranted demands customarily imposed upon those defending a long drawn out lawsuit."⁴ The Supreme Court has made it clear that until the threshold question of immunity is resolved, discovery should not be allowed.⁵

3 Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232-33, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1793, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991).

4 Id., 500 U.S. at 232.

5 Id. at 233; Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed. 2d 396 (1982)).

For the reasons cited above, Defendant's Motion to Stay is granted. All pretrial and Rule 26 proceedings, including the planning conference, scheduling conference, Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures and discovery, are hereby stayed until the Court has ruled on the pending Motion to Quash Summons and Dismiss (doc. 5).

IT IS SO ORDERED.