Green v. Brown et al

Filing 92

MINUTE ORDER granting 88 Defendant Brown's Motion to Stay Briefing on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and granting 90 the Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Qualified Immunity Asserted in Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Snyder and Emrick, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 5/9/2011. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02669-WYD-MEH
STEVEN DOUGLAS GREEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
WENDY BROWN,
DARRELL SNYDER, and
GERALD EMRICK,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on May 9, 2011.
Defendant Brown’s Motion to Stay Briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[filed May 6, 2011; docket #88] and the Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Qualified
Immunity Asserted in Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Snyder and Emrick [filed May 9,
2011; docket #90] are granted. The Supreme Court established that evaluating the defense of
qualified immunity is a threshold issue, and “[u]ntil this threshold immunity question is resolved,
discovery should not be allowed.” Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 233 (1991) (citing Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)); Workman v. Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 336 (10th Cir. 1992)
(same); see also Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 308 & 310 (1996) (noting that discovery can
be particularly disruptive when a dispositive motion regarding immunity is pending). All three
defendants raise qualified immunity as a defense in the pending motions to dismiss; therefore, the
Court must follow Supreme Court precedent regarding staying discovery until resolution of the
immunity question. This stay of discovery shall extend to staying the briefing on the pending
motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff.