Garcia et al v. Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo et al

Filing 76

ORDER granting 68 Motion of Defendants Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo and the State of Colorado to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and Jury Demand and Request for Injunctive Relief. Discovery is stayed as between Plaintiff and State Defendants only. Discovery is not stayed as to Defendants Dequardo, Sewell, or Casias, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 8/24/09.(ebs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 09-cv-00359-PAB-KLM BONNIE GARCIA, individually and as putative personal representative of the estate of Joshua Garcia, Plaintiff, v. COLORADO MENTAL HEALTH INSTITUTE AT PUEBLO, THE STATE OF COLORADO, JOHN DEQUARDO, individually, JAMES SEWELL, M.D., individually, and CORRINE MARTINEZ CASIAS, individually, Defendant(s). _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER STAYING CASE AS TO STATE DEFENDANTS _____________________________________________________________________ ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX This matter is before the Court on Motion of Defendants Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo and the State of Colorado ["State Defendants"] to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff['s] Second Amended Complaint and Jury Demand and Request for Injunctive Relief [Docket No. 68; Filed July 16, 2009] (the "Motion"). Plaintiff filed a Response in opposition to the Motion on August 4, 2009 [Docket No. 72], informing the Court that she had voluntarily agreed to dismiss her claims against State Defendants but objecting to the Motion to the extent that any order granting it would have the effect of staying discovery as to any other parties. Response [#72] at 2; see also Response to Motion to Dismiss [#71] at 2, 4-5. The Court notes that none of the other Defendants joined in filing the Motion, and the Court does not construe State Defendants' Motion to be a request to stay all discovery as to all Defendants. Rather, the

Court interprets the Motion to be a request to stay discovery as to State Defendants only pending resolution of their Motion to Dismiss involving immunity grounds. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. Given that Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss her claims against State Defendants [Docket No. 71], until such dismissal takes effect, I agree that a stay of discovery as between Plaintiff and State Defendants is appropriate. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that discovery is STAYED as between Plaintiff and State Defendants only. Discovery is not stayed as to Defendants Dequardo, Sewell or Casias. Dated: August 24, 2009 BY THE COURT: s/ Kristen L. Mix United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix

2