Gallegos et al v. City of Fort Lupton et al

Filing 30

ORDER GRANTING STAY OF DISCOVERY. The 28 School District Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Their Rule 12(b)(6) is granted. Discovery as to the School District Defendants is temporarily stayed pending resolution of their motion to dismiss, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 08/29/2012.(wjcsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01594-MSK-MEH
JASON GALLEGOS, and
JENNIFER YARBROUGH, for themselves and on behalf of Cyrus Gallegos,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF FORT LUPTON,
FORT LUPTON POLICE DEPARTMENT,
SERGEANT KEVIN HALLORAN,
DETECTIVE CRYSTAL SCHWARTZ,
OFFICER PAUL STIPE,
MARK PAYLER, Superintendent of Schools,
JOHN HOAG, Assistant Superintendent of Schools,
NATIVITY MILLER, Butler Elementary School Principal,
STEPHANIE ANDERSON, Butler Elementary Assistant Principal,
MARK GONZALEZ, Expelled Student Services Coordinator,
THE ENTIRE WELD COUNTY RE-8 BOARD OF EDUCATION, as individuals, namely
CRIS HOWARD, Board of Education President,
BETH MCWILLIAMS, Board of Education Vice President,
DARLINE LONG, Board of Education Secretary,
JANELLE PEREZ, Board of Education Treasurer,
CAROL MCDERMOTT, Board of Education Director,
SUZANN MCCRUMB, Board of Education Director,
DAWN KOSHIO GILLESPIE, Board of Education Director, and
WELD 8 SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING STAY OF DISCOVERY

Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is the School District Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery
Pending Resolution of Their Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss [filed August 28, 2012; docket #28].
The motion is referred to this Court for disposition. (Docket #29.) Oral argument would not
materially assist the Court in its adjudication of the motion. For the reasons that follow, the Court

GRANTS the motion to stay discovery as to the School District Defendants.
I.

Background
Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to state law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Fourth and Fifth

Amendments to the United States Constitution. (Docket #15 at 6-10.) All defendants responded to
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with motions to dismiss. (Dockets ##16, 17.) Defendants Payler,
Hoag, Miller, Anderson, Gonzalez, Howard, McWilliams, Long, Perez, McDermott, McCrumb and
Gillespie (“School District Defendants”) assert an entitlement to qualified immunity (docket #16 at
3-4). In the present motion, the School District Defendants request that discovery be stayed pending
resolution of the immunity defense stated in their motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs do not object
to the request.
II.

Discussion
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). However, the defense
of qualified immunity “is not a bar to all discovery.” Rome v. Romero, 225 F.R.D. 640, 643 (D.
Colo. 2004). There are certain circumstances when discovery is permissible despite an assertion of
qualified immunity, including cases alleging official-capacity claims, requests for injunctive (as
opposed to monetary) relief, and claims against entities, not individuals. See Rome, 225 F.R.D. at
643. Additionally, permitting discovery up until the point that qualified immunity is raised may be
appropriate, particularly when the defense is not advanced until the filing of a motion for summary
judgment. Id. at 643-44.
Here, it is unclear whether Plaintiffs sue each of the School District Defendants in their
individual capacities; the Amended Complaint lists these individuals “in their capacities as school
2

district employees and functionaries.” Docket #15 at 1-2. However, Plaintiffs seek only money
damages and do not include a request for injunctive relief in the Amended Complaint. (See docket
#15 at 10.) The case is still in the early stages of litigation; the present motion was filed one day
after the scheduling conference took place, and the School District Defendants responded to
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint with the pending motion to dismiss that could fully dispose of
Plaintiffs’ claims before engaging in the discovery process.
The Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as incidental to its power to control its
own docket. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American
Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). Legal questions regarding the court’s subject matter jurisdiction
should be resolved as early as possible in the litigation, before incurring the burdens of discovery.
See 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); Moore v. Busby, 92 F. App’x
699, 702 (10th Cir. 2004) (affirming trial court’s stay of discovery pending resolution of absolute
immunity question); Albright v. Rodriguez, 51 F.3d 1531, 1534 (10th Cir. 1995) (“the Supreme
Court has repeatedly ‘stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest
possible stage in litigation.’” (citation omitted)). The Plaintiffs do not oppose the School District
Defendant’s request for stay. Further, considering the early filing of the motion to dismiss premised
on qualified immunity and that the suit is filed for money damages against Defendants presumably
named in their individual capacities, the Court finds that the circumstances evaluated in Rome are
distinguishable from the case at hand. In light of the governing case law as stated herein, the Court
concludes that a temporary stay of discovery as to the School District Defendants is appropriate in
this matter, pending resolution of their motion to dismiss.

3

III.

Conclusion
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that the School District

Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Their Rule 12(b)(6)
Motion to Dismiss [filed August 28, 2012; docket #28] is granted. Discovery as to the School
District Defendants is temporarily stayed pending resolution of their motion to dismiss. The parties
shall file a status report within three business days of receiving a ruling on the motion to dismiss,
indicating what scheduling, if any, is needed.
Entered and dated at Denver, Colorado, this 29th day of August, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge

4