Case No. 17-1046-EFM
By informal communication with the court, the parties in this case have jointly requested a temporary stay of discovery and scheduling-order deadlines pending a ruling on defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 20).
The court may stay discovery if: (1) the case is likely to be finally concluded via a dispositive motion; (2) the facts sought through discovery would not affect the resolution of the dispositive motion; or (3) discovery on all issues posed by the complaint would be wasteful and burdensome. The decision whether to stay discovery rests in the sound discretion of court. As a practical matter, this calls for a case-by-case determination.
Considering the relevant factors, information provided by the parties, and the briefing related to the pending dispositive motion, the court agrees with the parties that a brief stay of all pretrial proceedings is warranted until the court rules the dispositive motion. In consideration of the foregoing, and upon good cause shown,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. All deadlines set in the June 2, 2017 scheduling order (ECF No. 16), including all scheduled hearings, are terminated and will be re-set following the court's ruling on the motion for summary judgment.
2. If this case remains pending in any part after a decision on the motion for summary judgment, then within 14 days of the decision the parties shall confer and submit via email to the undersigned's chambers a status report suggesting new pre-trial deadlines.
Dated September 5, 2017, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/James P. O'Hara
James P. O'Hara
U.S. Magistrate Judge
See Wolf v. United States, 157 F.R.D. 494, 495 (D. Kan. 1994) (citing Kutilek v. Gannon, 132 F.R.D. 296, 297-98 (D. Kan. 1990)); Lofland v. City of Shawnee, Kan., No. 16-2183, 2016 WL 5109941, at *1 (D. Kan. Sept. 20, 2016).