Suttington et al v. Kansas, State of et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
SEAN ANTHONY SUTTINGTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF KANSAS, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-CV-2030-JWB-JBW
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to file Disposition and Interrogatory”
(Dkt. 17). The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as requesting permission to serve thirteen
proposed interrogatories (two with subparts). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) provides
that a “party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required
by Rule 26(f),” except in exempt proceedings, by stipulation, or court order. Interrogatories to be
served under Rule 33 are discovery subject to the timing restrictions in Rule 26(d)(1).
The Court has not completed its screening of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. 16),
which asserts claims against more than forty defendants, so no defendant has been served in this
case. The Court has not yet held a scheduling conference or required the parties to hold a Rule
26(f) planning conference. Plaintiff’s request for permission to serve discovery—in the form of
his proposed interrogatories—is therefore premature at this time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for permission to serve
interrogatories (Dkt. 17) is denied without prejudice.
Case 2:26-cv-02030-JWB-JBW Document 19 Filed 05/21/26 Page 1 of 2

2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated May 21, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
Jennifer B. Wieland
U. S. Magistrate Judge
Case 2:26-cv-02030-JWB-JBW Document 19 Filed 05/21/26 Page 2 of 2