ORDER

TONY N. LEUNG, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Shane P. Garry's "Motion for a Stay of These Proceedings Until an Outcome of Karsjens v. Piper, 845 F.3d 394, 08 [sic] (8[th] Cir. 2017) Has Been Decided" (ECF No. 14) and letter request for an extension of time (ECF No. 25).

I.

A. Motion to Stay

Plaintiff requests that this matter be stayed pending the resolution of an appeal filed in Karsjens v. Piper, No. 11-cv-3659 (DWF/TNL). Plaintiff states that "[a]t the core of the Karsjens v. Piper[] recent Appeal above is the Plaintiff[']s argument," and "until the above appeal has been heard and decided by the 8[th] Circuit Court of Appeals [i]n Karsjens v. Piper, it would be detrimental for the present matter to move forward." (Mot. to Stay at 1.) Defendants oppose the requested stay. (See generally Defs.' Mem. in Opp'n, ECF No. 21.)

"`[T]he power to stay proceedings 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." Cottrell v. Duke, 737 F.3d 1238, 1248 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)); see Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 446 F.3d 808, 816 (8th Cir. 2006); Lunde v. Helms, 898 F.2d 1343, 1345 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). "While the Court's inherent power to manage its docket places this decision within the Court's broad discretion, `[t]he proponent of the stay bears the burden of establishing its need.'" KK Motors, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., No. 98-cv-2307 (JRT/RLE), 1999 WL 246808, at *2 (D. Minn. Feb. 23, 1999) (alteration in original) (quoting Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997)); accord Stratasys, Inc. v. Microboards Tech., LLC, No. 13-cv-3228 (DWF/TNL), 2015 WL 1608344, at *1 (D. Minn. Apr. 10, 2015) ("The burden of establishing that a stay is appropriate is with the party seeking the stay."). Stays are the exception rather than the rule. KK Motors, 1999 WL 246808, at *2; see In re Wholesale Grocery Prods. Antitrust Litig., No. 09-md-2090 (ADM/AJB), 2013 WL 6533154, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 13, 2013) (noting "the Supreme Court has counseled moderation" in the use of stays).

It is not clear to this Court the precise basis on which Plaintiff requests that this matter be stayed. While Plaintiff cites the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Karsjens v. Piper, 845 F.3d 394 (8th Cir. 2017), rehearing and rehearing en banc were denied by the Eighth Circuit on February 22, 2017, and the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari on October 2, 2017, 138 S.Ct. 106 (2017). Plaintiff also states that, "[o]n or about December 20, 2018. . .," an appeal was filed with the Eighth Circuit "from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota." (Mot. to Stay at 1.) As best as this Court is able to tell, Plaintiff may actually be referring to a pending appeal filed near the end of October 2018 from the district court's decision in Karsjens v. Piper, 336 F.Supp.3d 974 (D. Minn. Aug. 23, 2018), appeal filed, No. 18-cv-3343 (8th Cir.).1 (See ECF No. 1118 in No. 11-cv-3659.) Plaintiff has not, however, connected any of the issues in his case to the pending appeal in the Karsjens matter. Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that a stay is appropriate in this case. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to stay is denied.

B. Extension Request

Previously, Plaintiff was referred to the Pro Se Project, a program operated by the Minnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar Association through which volunteer individuals donate their time to assist unrepresented individuals. Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to file his response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 16) in order to confer with counsel as part of that program. A little over one week later, Plaintiff filed his memorandum in opposition to Defendants' motion, noting that (1) he has requested an extension of time; (2) he has not "yet been able to confer with legal counsel"; and (3) the filing of his memorandum is "not a withdrawal" of his extension request. (Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n at 1, ECF No. 27.) Defendants subsequently filed their reply memorandum. (See generally Defs.' Reply, ECF No. 28).

The Court will grant Plaintiff's request in part and give him until May 13, 2019, to file a supplemental memorandum. Defendants may then have until May 28, 2019, to file a supplemental reply. Thereafter, Defendants' motion to dismiss will be deemed submitted and the Court will issue its report and recommendation based on the papers, without a hearing.

II.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4. Defendants have until May 28, 2019, to file a supplemental reply in connection with their motion to dismiss.