Rodriguez et al v. Exxon Mobil Corporation et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
BILLIE RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, ET AL.,
Defendants.
and
STATE OF KANSAS, EX REL., KRIS KOBACH,
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Defendant-Intervenor.
Case No. 25-CV-02195-TC-TJJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 249) filed by
Defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation, Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP, Chevron U.S.A.
Inc., DuPont de Nemours, Inc., Celanese Corporation, Dow Inc., The Dow Chemical Company,
Eastman Chemical Company, Equistar Chemicals, LP, and American Chemistry Council, Inc.
(collectively “Defendants”). Defendants request an order staying all discovery until the Court
rules on Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Class Action
Complaint (ECF No. 247). Plaintiffs oppose the stay. As explained below, Defendants’ Motion
to Stay is granted.
Case 2:25-cv-02195-TC-BGS Document 275 Filed 10/28/25 Page 1 of 7

2
I. Plaintiffs’ Allegations1
Plaintiffs’ allegations span several decades and concern the viability of plastic recycling.
The Amended Class Action Complaint is 98-pages and contains 46 counts, largely based on
various state consumer protection and antitrust statutes. Defendants are several petrochemical
companies that produce single-use plastics products such as bottles, cups, utensils, take-out
containers, and packaging. Highly summarized, Plaintiffs claim since the 1950s Defendants have
known most plastic waste is not recyclable, and yet continued to engage in the promotion and
production of plastics while touting plastics’ supposed disposability. Plaintiffs allege despite
knowing plastics limited recyclability, Defendants encouraged the recycling of plastics, using trade
groups to spread their message of recyclability as a solution to plastic waste, while continuing to
mass-produce single-use plastics. Plaintiffs also claim Defendants pushed their recyclability
messaging despite research showing recycling continued to prove to be an ineffective method to
combat plastic pollution and waste, and Defendants continue, to this day, to deceive customers
regarding the recyclability of single-use plastics to raise plastics prices and continue their
production thereof.
Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class consisting of: “All persons, governmental, and
non-governmental entities in the United States and its territories who indirectly purchased plastics
for end use from January 1, 1990 until Defendants’ conduct ceases or class notice is given,
whichever occurs first.”2 Plaintiffs seek an injunction to prohibit Defendants from advertising
1 The allegations set out in this section were gleaned from Plaintiffs’ Amended Class Action
Complaint (ECF No. 48).
2 Id. at p. 44.
Case 2:25-cv-02195-TC-BGS Document 275 Filed 10/28/25 Page 2 of 7

3
their plastic products as recyclable and damages for the increased cost of plastic products
purchased by Plaintiffs during the class period, as well as damages under various state laws for the
prices paid due to Defendants’ alleged conduct.
Defendants and Defendant-Intervenor3 jointly filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 247)
seeking to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims, arguing Plaintiffs failed to state an antitrust, public
nuisance, consumer fraud, or unjust enrichment claim. Defendants also argue Plaintiffs lack
Article III standing and all of Plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred. Subsequently, Defendants filed
the present Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No. 249), seeking to stay all discovery pending the
resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
II. Applicable Law
The decision regarding whether to stay discovery and other pretrial proceedings is firmly
vested in the sound discretion of the trial court.4 A court may stay discovery on a showing of good
cause “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden
or expense.”5 The Tenth Circuit, however, has held that “the right to proceed in court should not
be denied except under the most extreme circumstances.”6 A stay is not favored because it can
3 Defendant-Intervenor State of Kansas ex rel. Kris Kobach, Attorney General was granted
limited intervention in this matter when it was pending in the Western District of Missouri. See ECF No.
85. Defendant-Intervenor joined Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, but did not join the present Motion to
Stay Discovery.
4 Pet Milk Co. v. Ritter, 323 F.2d 586, 588 (10th Cir. 1963); Kramer v. Textron Aviation, Inc., No.
20-2341-HLT-GEB, 2021 WL 4902249, at *3 (D. Kan. Oct. 21, 2021). See also Clinton v. Jones, 520
U.S. 681, 706–07 (1997) (“District court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its
power to control its own docket.”).
5 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). See also Cont’l Ill. Nat. Bank & Tr. Co. of Chicago v. Caton, 130
F.R.D. 145, 148 (D. Kan. 1990).
6 Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Chilcott Portfolio Mgmt., Inc., 713 F.2d 1477, 1484
(10th Cir. 1983).
Case 2:25-cv-02195-TC-BGS Document 275 Filed 10/28/25 Page 3 of 7

4
delay the timely resolution of a matter.7 Thus, as a general rule, courts in the District of Kansas
disfavor staying pretrial proceedings even though dispositive motions are pending.8
There are, however, recognized exceptions to this general rule.9 A stay pending a ruling
on a dispositive motion is appropriate 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; (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.10
If any one if these factors is present, a stay may be appropriate.11 The party seeking the stay of
discovery bears the burden of clearly showing a compelling reason for issuance of a stay.12
III. Legal Analysis
Plaintiffs have asserted many and varied claims against multiple Defendants, as laid out
in their 98-page First Amended Class Action Complaint. The factual allegations contained in the
First Amended Class Action Complaint span more than 70 years. The proposed nationwide class
will undoubtedly be large and there are numerous Defendants. It is beyond dispute that if/when
7 Cargill Meat Sols. Corp. v. Premium Beef Feeders, LLC, No. 13-CV-1168-EFM-TJJ, 2015 WL
3937395, at *1 (D. Kan. June 26, 2015).
8 McDaniel v. Lakeview Vill., Inc., No. 23-2090-TC-TJJ, 2023 WL 4198601, at *1 (D. Kan. June
27, 2023) (“longstanding ‘general policy in this district is not to stay discovery even though dispositive
motions are pending’” (quoting Wolf v. United States, 157 F.R.D. 494, 495 (D. Kan. 1994))).
9 Id.; Tennant v. Miller, No. 13-2143-EFM, 2013 WL 4848836, at *1 (D. Kan. Sept. 11, 2013);
McCoy v. United States, No. 07-2097-CM, 2007 WL 2071770, at *2 (D. Kan. July 16, 2007); Holroyd v.
Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, No. 06-4133-SAC, 2007 WL 1585846, at *1 (D. Kan. June 1, 2007).
10 KetoNatural Pet Foods, Inc. v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc., No. 24-CV-2046-KHV-ADM, 2024
WL 4274891, at *2 (D. Kan. Sept. 24, 2024); McDaniel, 2023 WL 4198601, at *1; Fattaey v. Kansas
State Univ., No. 15-9314-JAR-KGG, 2016 WL 3743104, at *1–2 (D. Kan. July 13, 2016).
11 Wolf, 157 F.R.D. at 495.
12 Accountable Health Sols., LLC v. Wellness Corp. Sols., LLC, No. 16-2494-DDC-TJJ, 2016 WL
4761839, at *1 (D. Kan. Sept. 13, 2016).
Case 2:25-cv-02195-TC-BGS Document 275 Filed 10/28/25 Page 4 of 7

5
discovery occurs in this case, it will be extensive and expensive.
Defendants and Defendant-Intervenor have moved to dismiss this action in its entirety on
multiple grounds including: (1) Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring this suit, (2) Plaintiffs’
claims are time-barred, and (3) Plaintiffs otherwise fail to state a claim, as explained in their
motion to dismiss.13 The Court, in its discretion finds, under the circumstances presented here, a
stay is appropriate and necessary because discovery at this stage of the proceedings on all of the
many issues posed by the First Amended Class Action Complaint would likely be wasteful and
unduly burdensome. The Court agrees with Defendants that the ruling on the Motion to Dismiss
could “result in a substantial narrowing of the claims and issues,” even if it does not resolve the
matter in its entirety.14
Most notably, Defendants raise a jurisdictional argument in their pending Motion to
Dismiss, asserting Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring this matter. It would be wasteful
and unduly burdensome to subject Defendants to the extensive discovery that is likely in this case
if Plaintiffs lack standing and all of their claims are ultimately dismissed on that basis. The better
course is for the Court to stay discovery pending determination of that issue as part of the pending
Motion to Dismiss. Additionally, and not surprisingly, given Plaintiff’s allegations date back to
the 1950s, Defendants have asserted a statute of limitations defense which, if successful, could
result in the dismissal of some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims. Defendants further assert Plaintiffs
otherwise fail to state a claim. While these issues will be resolved by the District Judge, it is
13 See Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ and Defendant-Intervenor’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Class Action Complaint, ECF No. 248.
14 See Memorandum in Support of Defs.’ Mot. to Stay Proceedings, ECF 250, p. 6.
Case 2:25-cv-02195-TC-BGS Document 275 Filed 10/28/25 Page 5 of 7

6
obvious that it would be wasteful and unduly burdensome to subject the parties to the extensive
discovery likely in this case without awaiting a ruling on the pending Motion to Dismiss, which
may impact the number of Defendants that remain in the proceedings and the scope of the claims
asserted against them.
Plaintiffs argue a stay is inappropriate because discovery will affect the resolution of the
pending Motion to Dismiss. However, Plaintiffs only broadly state discovery into the issues
raised in the Motion to Dismiss is necessary, without identify any specific discovery they need
or intend to seek regarding the Motion to Dismiss, or even argue they need discovery to be able
to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The Court does not find Plaintiffs’ argument
compelling.
On a final note, in support of their Motion to Stay, Defendants point the Court to recent
Tenth Circuit precedent finding that “due to the expense of antitrust discovery, [the Tenth Circuit]
‘insists upon some specificity in pleading before allowing potentially massive factual controversy
to proceed.’”15 Defendants cite this precedent to imply there is some lower standard for imposing
a stay of discovery in cases with antitrust claims. However, the Court notes that the ruling in the
Association of Surgical Assistants upon which Defendants so heavily rely was made in the context
of a ruling on a motion to dismiss, and largely concerns pleading standards for antitrust claims,
rather than whether a stay of discovery is appropriate in such cases.16 Nonetheless, because
Defendants have met their burden of showing a stay is appropriate under the standards regularly
15 Def.’s Reply in Support of the Motion to Stay Discovery, ECF No. 258, p. 1 (quoting Ass’n of
Surgical Assistants v. Nat'l Bd. of Surgical Tech. & Surgical Assisting, 127 F.4th 178, 186 (10th Cir.
2025)).
16 Ass’n of Surgical Assistants, 127 F.4th at 186 (applying Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6)
standards to plaintiffs’ antitrust claims).
Case 2:25-cv-02195-TC-BGS Document 275 Filed 10/28/25 Page 6 of 7

7
employed in the District of Kansas, the Court declines to determine whether there is a different
and/or lower standard for staying discovery when antitrust claims are raised.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No.
249) is GRANTED. All discovery and other related Rule 26 proceedings, deadlines, and
requirements in this case—including the obligation to attend a Rule 16 scheduling conference, or
to issue or respond to any discovery—are hereby stayed with respect to all parties pending
further order of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated October 28, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas.
Teresa J. James
U. S. Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02195-TC-BGS Document 275 Filed 10/28/25 Page 7 of 7