1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

D’ANDRE BRADLEY; DAVID D. 

MOORE; TARA D. MOORE; BRETT O. 

SHELTON; ILLINOIS STATE RIFLE 

ASSOCIATION; and, SECOND 

AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

BRENDAN F. KELLY, in his official 

capacity as Direct of the Illinois State 

Police; and JESSICA TRAME, in her 

official capacity as Bureau Chief of the 

Illinois State Police Firearms Services 

Bureau,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 No. 20-cv-4270

 Judge Ronald A. Guzman

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

Defendants, Brendan Kelly, in his official capacity as the Director of the Illinois State 

Police (“ISP”); and Jessica Trame; in her official capacity as Bureau Chief of the Illinois State 

Police Firearms Services Bureau; by their attorney, Kwame Raoul, Attorney General of Illinois,

hereby move to stay discovery pending resolution of their motion to dismiss. In support of this 

motion, that Defendants expect will be opposed, Defendants state as follows:

1. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on July 20, 2020. ECF No. 1.

2. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and supporting Memorandum on September 

17, 2020. ECF Nos. 13-14. Defendants brought their Motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(1) and allege that this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims because the 

individual Plaintiffs’ claims are moot and the organizational Plaintiffs lack standing. See id.

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/23/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:72
2

3. It is well established that a “court has broad discretion over pretrial discovery 

rulings.” Thermal Design, Inc. v. American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and AirConditioning, Engineers, Inc., 755 F.3d 832, 837 (7th Cir. 2014). A court’s power to stay discovery 

is “incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its 

docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North 

American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Therefore, a court may stay discovery pending a motion 

to dismiss. Landis, 299 U.S. at 254. 

4. Here, a stay of discovery is particularly appropriate because the Defendant’s motion 

argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. Federal courts lack subject 

matter jurisdiction when a case becomes moot. Pakovich v. Verizon LTD Plan, 653 F.3d 488, 492 

(7th Cir. 2011). Further, “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter 

jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

5. Other courts have recognized that when subject matter jurisdiction is challenged, it 

is appropriate to stay discovery. U.S. Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 

487 U.S. 72, 79-80 (1988) (“It is recognized and appropriate procedure for a court to limit 

discovery proceedings at the outset to a determination of jurisdictional matters.”); Harper v.

Central Wire, Inc., No. 19-CV-502878, 2020 WL 5230746, *2 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 2, 2020) (stating that 

jurisdiction is a threshold issue that supports a stay of discovery). This reasoning should be applied 

here. If Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted, this Court will have to dismiss this matter. As 

such, it is unduly burdensome to require Defendants to engage in any discovery before the 

threshold question of subject-matter jurisdiction is resolved.

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/23/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:73
3

6. Further, there is currently a motion pending in Thomas et al. v. Illinois State Police 

et al., Case No. 20-CV-734 (N.D. Ill.), to have this matter reassigned to the Honorable Judge Mary 

M. Rowland as related pursuant to Local Rule 40.4. 

7. The pending motion in Thomas also supports staying discovery in this matter, as 

both cases are still in their preliminary stages. ECF No. 15-1 at 4-5. As such, any stay in discovery 

will not have a substantial delay in this case. Finally, because of the significant overlap between 

the two cases, if this matter is reassigned to Judge Rowland, it is possible that a single discovery 

schedule will be set for both cases, eliminating unnecessary duplication of efforts on behalf of all 

parties and the court. Texas Indep. Producers and Royalty Owners Ass’n v. E.P.A., 410 F.3d 964, 

980 (7th Cir 2005) internal quotation omitted (recognizing that a stay of proceedings pending the 

outcome of related litigation is appropriate to avoid “unnecessary duplication of judicial 

machinery.”); Pochert v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC, No. 11-C-2440, 2011 WL 

4007731 at *3 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 9, 2011) (stating that reassignment of a related case can avoid 

wasteful duplication in discovery).

8. Due to the nature of Defendants motion to dismiss and the pending motion to 

reassign in the Thomas case, a stay of discovery is appropriate because requiring Defendants to 

engage in discovery would impose an undue burden on the Defendants. Further, if the motion to 

reassign filed in Thomas is granted, it would undermine one of the goals of reassignment, which 

is to allow discovery to proceed in tandem to promote judicial economy. 

9. Defendants’ counsel met and conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel on September 21, 

2020 via Zoom regarding this proposed motion. Plaintiffs’ counsel opposes the motion.

WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant their motion and 

stay all discovery in this case pending resolution of the Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/23/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:74
4

September 23, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

KWAME RAOUL

Attorney General of Illinois

/s/ Mary A. Johnston 

Mary A. Johnston

Office of the Illinois Attorney General

100 West Randolph Street

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 814-3737

mjohnston@atg.state.il.us

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on September 23, 2020, I caused a copy of the foregoing Defendants’ Motion to 

Stay Discovery to be filed electronically on CM/ECF, which will cause a notice of filing to be 

sent to all counsel of record who have entered appearances.

/s/ Mary A. Johnston

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/23/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:75