Coltharp v. United States of America et al

Filing 30

OPINION AND ORDER: Accordingly, upon further consideration, it is ORDERED that:(1) The court's prior order denying jurisdictional discovery (doc. no. [2) is vacated. (2) The motions for leave to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery (doc. nos. 16 , 20 , and 25 ) are granted. (3) Plaintiff shall have until February 20, 2018, to conduct jurisdictional discovery. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/22/2017. (kh, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

LORI COLTHARP,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:14cv233-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
In

response

plaintiff

to

defendant’s

repeatedly

jurisdictional

moved

discovery.

motion

for

to

leave

The

court

dismiss,

to

conduct

denied

those

motions for discovery, but in so doing, explained that
“[i]f

it

should

appear

that

the

dispositive

motion

cannot be resolved without discovery, the court will
then allow discovery.”
motion

to

dismiss,

Order (doc. no. 29).

defendant

asserts

that

In its
it

is

entitled to the discretionary function exception under
the

Federal

Resolution
determine

Torts
of

Claims

this

whether

Act,

motion

there

was

28

U.S.C. § 2680(a).

requires
a

the

court

to

mandatory

policy

or

regulation
actor’s

that

eliminated

discretion.

policy

or

unable

to

publicly

Defendant

regulation
rebut

the

exists,

that

available

involved
asserts

and

or

that

no

such

has

plaintiff

argument.

statutes

government

been

However,
regulations,

practically difficult for her to do so.”

“absent
it

is

Willet v.

U.S., No. 2:12-CV-296, 2013 WL 3280323 *4 (M.D. Ala.
June 27, 2013) (Watkins, J.).

It is now apparent that

limited jurisdictional discovery is warranted to allow
the

plaintiff

an

opportunity

to

seek

the

evidence

needed to contest defendant’s assertion.
***
Accordingly,

upon

further

consideration,

it

is

ORDERED that:
(1) The court’s prior order denying jurisdictional
discovery (doc. no. 29) is vacated.
(2) The

motions

for

leave

to

conduct

limited

jurisdictional discovery (doc. nos. 16, 20, and 25) are
granted.

2

(3) Plaintiff shall have until February 20, 2018,
to conduct jurisdictional discovery.
DONE, this the 22nd day of December, 2017.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE