Marquez v. Dreiling et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
CESAR MARQUEZ, individually and as next
friend of his minor children Z.D. and Z.D.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GRANT DREILING, in his individual capacity,
and USD 512 JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS
BOARD OF EDUCATION, aka Shawnee Mission
School District,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-2547-JWB-ADM
ORDER
Cesar Marquez is the father of two students attending school in the Shawnee Mission
School District (“SMSD”). 	After the principal of Shawnee Mission South High School, Grant
Dreiling, barred Marquez from all SMSD property, Marquez filed this civil-rights action against
Dreiling and the USD 512 Johnson County, Kansas Board of Education (aka SMSD). This matter
now comes before the court on Dreiling’s Motion for Stay. 	(ECF 21.) 	By way of this motion,
Dreiling asks the court to stay these proceedings pending a ruling on his motion to dismiss, in
which he asserts immunity defenses. (ECF 17). For the reasons discussed below, this motion is
granted in part and denied in part. 	The court stays discovery as to Dreiling, but the case will
otherwise proceed.
This district’s longstanding policy is not to stay discovery simply because a dispositive
motion is pending. See Wolf v. United States, 157 F.R.D. 494, 495 (D. Kan. 1994). A stay may
be appropriate, however, if “(1) the case is likely to be finally concluded via the dispositive motion;
(2) the facts sought through discovery would not affect the resolution of the dispositive motion;
Case 2:25-cv-02547-JWB-ADM Document 23 Filed 11/05/25 Page 1 of 3

2
(3) discovery on all issues posed by the complaint would be wasteful and burdensome; or (4) the
dispositive motion raises issues as to a defendant’s immunity from suit.” Myles v. Walmart, Inc.,
No. 22-4069-DDC-ADM, 2023 WL 1469456, at *1-2 (D. Kan. Feb. 2, 2023). Whether to grant a
stay of discovery is committed to the trial court’s sound discretion. 	Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S.
681, 706 (1997).
Dreiling’s motion to stay is based solely on the fact that he has asserted absolute and
qualified immunity defenses in his motion to dismiss. 	Marquez opposes the motion to stay by
arguing that Dreiling’s immunity defenses fail under recent and clearly established law. 	But
regardless of the merits of Dreiling’s immunity defenses, a defendant is generally entitled to have
questions of immunity resolved before being required to engage in discovery. See Arnold v. City
of Olathe, Kan., No. 18-cv-2703-CM-JPO, 2019 WL 2438677, at *2 (D. Kan. Mar. 8, 2019) (citing
Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991) (“One of the purposes of immunity, absolute or
qualified, is to spare a defendant not only unwarranted liability, but unwarranted demands
customarily imposed upon those defending a long drawn out lawsuit.”). 	Until the “threshold
immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S.
800, 819 (1982). Otherwise, a defendant who is entitled to immunity would be effectively deprived
of its benefit. Siegert, 500 U.S. at 232 (treating immunity as a threshold issue allows a court “to
weed out suits . . . without requiring a defendant who rightly claims qualified immunity to engage
in expensive and time consuming preparation to defend the suit on its merits”). The undersigned
judge makes no prediction on whether the presiding district judge will find Dreiling immune from
suit, but the law is clear that Dreiling is shielded from discovery until the court makes that threshold
determination.
Case 2:25-cv-02547-JWB-ADM Document 23 Filed 11/05/25 Page 2 of 3

3
The court finds no reason, however, to stay discovery as to SMSD. No party suggests a
reason, and the court finds that moving this case forward—to the extent possible—will further the
goal of a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of this action. FED. R. CIV. P. 1. Thus, the
court will proceed to issue an initial order regarding planning and scheduling in due course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Dreiling’s Motion to Stay (ECF 21) is granted in
part and denied in part, as set forth above. The court stays discovery as to Dreiling but does not
stay the proceedings entirely.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated November 5, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Angel D. Mitchell
Angel D. Mitchell
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02547-JWB-ADM Document 23 Filed 11/05/25 Page 3 of 3