Hays, Kansas, City of v. Edwards County, Kansas, Board of Commissioners

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS CITY OF HAYS, KANSAS AND CITY OF RUSSELL, KANSAS, Plaintiffs, v. EDWARDS COUNTY, KANSAS, BOARD Case No. 25-1054-HLT-GEB OF COMMISSIONERS, THE EDWARDS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, MICA SCHNOEBELEN, LYLE SCHUETTE, BILLY L. BROKAR, JIM CARLSON, WILLIAM R. BURR, GEORGE HETZEL, MARLIN BUTLER, LEROY WETZEL, and RICHARD NEILSON, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on a flurry of pre-discovery motions by the parties: 1) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Rescind Order (ECF No. 9); 2) Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 10); 3) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 12); and 4) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Deadlines (ECF No. 21). For the reasons outlined below, the Court DENIES without prejudice as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion to Rescind Order (ECF No. 9); DENIES without prejudice as premature Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery and Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF Nos. 10 & 12); and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Deadlines (ECF No. 21).

I. Background This matter was removed to federal court on March 31, 2025 (ECF No. 1). On the same day, the state court records of the matter were added to the docket, amounting to 1,032 pages of pleadings and motions (ECF No. 3). At the time of removal, parties had already filed, and had pending, four motions in the matter: 1) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Rescind Order (ECF No. 9); 2) Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 10); 3) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Petition (ECF No. 11); and 4) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 12).

Throughout April, the parties continued their extreme motion practice, filing four new motions: Motions to Dismiss and Remand the Case (ECF Nos. 18 & 20); a Motion to Disqualify Counsel (ECF No. 19); and a Motion to Stay Deadlines (ECF No. 21). No responses have been filed to these motions. However, where no formal scheduling of this removed matter has yet begun, and two dispositive motions are already currently pending before the District Judge, the Court is prepared to address all premature discovery related motions in turn.

II. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Rescind Order (ECF No. 9) On November 11, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this Motion to Rescind Order in Edwards County, requesting an Order rescinding the November 21, 2024 Order granting the Defendants’ “Joint” Motion for additional time to file an Answer (ECF No. 3 at 710). While Plaintiffs did not object to the granting of an extension of time, they suggested a 90-120 day extension of time to answer was excessive (ECF No. 3 at 713). On November 26, 2024, Defendants responded in opposition to the Motion asserting the added time was, in fact, necessary to review Plaintiffs’ 84-page Petition with 546 pages of exhibits (ECF No. 3 at 721). On November 27, 2024, Plaintiffs replied again requesting only a “reasonable” amount of time for extension, and not the full time allotted (ECF No. 3 at 726).

All of this argument references the original Petition in the matter. On March 11, 2025, Plaintiffs amended their pleading and filed a new, 99-page Amended Petition (ECF No. 1-1), but they did not withdraw this Motion at that time. A Motion to Rescind an Order granting an extension of time to respond to a now non-operative pleading, is moot. Thus, Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 9) is denied without prejudice as moot.

III. Defendants’ Motion to Stay Written Discovery (ECF No. 10) and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (ECF No. 12) On January 3, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Written Discovery pending the resolution of their Motion to Disqualify Counsel (ECF No. 3 at 759). On January 17, 2025, Plaintiffs responded in opposition to this Motion (ECF No. 3 at 769). But, on February 18, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss this matter in Edwards County (ECF No. 3 at 834). Those motions are currently pending with the District Judge. Then, in response to the Motion to Dismiss, on March 11, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Petition (ECF No. 1-1). Yet, on March 25, 2025, Plaintiffs still sought responses to the written discovery served with the original Petition in October 2024 and filed this Motion to Compel Written Discovery (ECF No. 3 at 959).

Plaintiffs are aware the discovery process does not start the day they submit their Petition and they cannot seek discovery ahead of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 conferral.1 Additionally,

1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). in Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition they added an additional 10+ pages to their already over 80 pages of claims. With a new operative pleading, written discovery is premature. Plaintiffs have not shown good cause for expedited discovery relating to preliminary injunctive relief or jurisdictional issues.2 In federal court, responses to written discovery are not due until days after a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference. No such conference has been scheduled or ordered in this matter, so no written discovery is due at this stage in the proceedings. Thus, both discovery related Motions (ECF Nos. 10 & 12) are denied without prejudice as premature.

IV. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Deadlines (ECF No. 21) On April 21, 2025, Plaintiffs filed this Motion to Stay Deadlines requesting the Court: 1) determine the Motion for Remand ahead of the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Disqualify Counsel in this matter; and 2) stay all deadlines and proceedings until the Court has determined jurisdiction (ECF No. 21). Plaintiffs note Defendants oppose the motion (ECF No. 21 at 3). The order in which the motions before the District Judge are decided is at the discretion of the District Judge. Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 21) is granted in part and denied in part. For purposes of judicial economy, all deadlines are stayed until resolution of the Motion for Remand (ECF No. 20) and Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 18).

IT IS SO ORDERED. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Rescind Order (ECF No. 9) is DENIED without prejudice as moot.

2 HydroChem LLC v. Keating, No. 17-1281-JTM, 2017 WL 5483441, at *1 (D. Kan. Nov. 15, 2017); Teran v. GB Int'l. S.P.A., No. 11-2236-JAR, 2011 WL 5005997, at *2 (D. Kan. Oct. 20, 2011).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED. Defendants’ Motion to Stay Written Discovery (ECF No. 10) and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (ECF No. 12) are DENIED without prejudice as premature.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Deadlines (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. All deadlines are stayed and the Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 conference will be postponed until after the pending Motion for Remand (ECF No. 20) and Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 18) have been decided by the District Judge.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED. The parties are strongly discouraged from unnecessary and extreme motion practice at this stage of the proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated April 29, 2025, at Wichita, Kansas.

s/ Gwynne E. Birzer GWYNNE E. BIRZER United States Magistrate Judge