Steil v. Humana Health Care Plans

Full title: KEITH STEIL, Plaintiff, v. HUMANA HEALTH CARE PLANS, INC., et al.…

Court: United States District Court, D. Kansas

Date published: May 1, 2000

Civ. No. 99-2541-KHV (D. Kan. May. 1, 2000)

Opinion

Civ. No. 99-2541-KHV.

Filed: May 1, 2000.

KEITH STEIL, pro se.

Robert B. Van Cleave, Overland Park, KS. for plaintiff.

Michael D. Moeller, Shook, Hardy Bacon L.L.P., Kansas City, MO. for HUMANA KANSAS CITY, INC., defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Gerald L. Rushfelt, United States Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is a Motion for Stay of Discovery (doc. 22). Plaintiff thereby seeks an order staying discovery in this case until resolution of a correlative matter in state court. He contends that a stay is necessary, because some issues in the current case overlap issues in the state proceeding. Defendants do not oppose staying discovery until the state court addresses issues of jurisdiction and venue. Stays of discovery are governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c).

Courts have "broad discretion to control and place appropriate limits on discovery." Kutilek v. Gannon, 132 F.R.D. 296, 297 (D.Kan. 1990). This discretion includes completely staying discovery until some future event occurs. The Court, however, will not generally stay discovery. Id. The District of Kansas generally disfavors motions to stay discovery. Thomas v. Tyler, 841 F. Supp. 1119, 1131 n. 6 (D.Kan. 1993). Absent some compelling reason, the Court will not stay discovery. Evello Invs. N.V. v. Printed Media Servs., No. Civ.A. 94-2254-EEO, 1995 WL 135613, at *5 (D.Kan. Mar. 28, 1995). The movant must clearly show that the Court should stay discovery.

Plaintiff has presented no compelling reason to stay discovery in this case. That defendants have no opposition to the motion does not determine the ruling of the Court. By reply brief, furthermore, plaintiff reveals that defendants have removed the state court proceeding to federal court. Plaintiff has, consequently, modified its initial request for stay. It now seeks "an order to stay discovery for a short time while the issues are formulated." (Pl.'s Reply, doc. 29.) It also suggests a need to change deadlines contained in the Scheduling Order governing this case.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court overrules the Motion for Stay of Discovery (doc. 22). Each party shall be responsible for its own costs and expenses incurred on the motion and subsequent briefing. The Court can consider whatever scheduling concerns the parties may have at the telephone status conference currently scheduled for July 18, 2000, at 11:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated in Kansas City, Kansas on this 31st day of May, 2000.