Bassett v. Colorado Department of Corrections
Filing
51
ORDER granting 47 Defendants Klinkler and Lombard's Motion to Stay Discovery and Vacate the Scheduling Conference. This matter is STAYED pending resolution of the pending motion to dismiss 46 . Scheduling Conference 7/8/2014 02:30 PM is vacated. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 7/2/2014.(emill)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-03391-MJW
STEVEN W. BASSETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
CDOC EMPLOYEE, Who Wrecked CTU Bus on December 17, 2012,
SERGEANT LOMBARDO of CTU, and
CDOC SPOKESMAN, Liaison on Scene of CTU Bus Wreck, December 17, 2012,
Defendants.
ORDER ON
DEFENDANT KLINKLER AND LOMBARD’S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND
VACATE THE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
(Docket No. 47)
MICHAEL J. WATANABE
United States Magistrate Judge
Now before the court is Defendants Klinkler and Lombard’s Motion to Stay
Discovery and Vacate the Scheduling Conference (Docket No. 47). The court has
taken judicial notice of the court’s file, and has considered the applicable Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and case law. The court notes that it may rule on a motion at any
time after it is filed. D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d). The court now being fully informed makes
the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order.
I. Background
Pro se incarcerated plaintiff Steven Bassett brings claims implicating the Eighth
Amendment. Defendants filed a Motion Dismiss (Docket No. 46) on June 13, 2014.
Among the arguments put forth by defendants in their motion to dismiss is that
defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. In the subject motion, defendants request
2
that all proceedings be stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss.
II. Analysis
The Supreme Court established that evaluating the defense of 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 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 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.
As stated above, defendants raise qualified immunity as a defense in their
pending motion to dismiss. The case is still in the early stages of litigation; defendants
responded to plaintiff’s operative complaint with the pending motion to dismiss. The
motion to dismiss could fully dispose of plaintiff’s claims before engaging in the
discovery process.
A 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
3
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); 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)). Considering the early filing of the motion to dismiss premised in part
on qualified immunity, the court finds that the circumstances evaluated in Rome are
inapplicable to the case at hand.
When considering a stay of discovery in a broader context, this court has
considered the following factors: (1) the plaintiff's interests in proceeding expeditiously
with the civil action and the potential prejudice to plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on
the defendants; (3) the convenience to the court; (4) the interests of persons not parties
to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest. See String Cheese Incident v. Stylus
Show, Inc., 02-cv-01934-LTB-PA, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006).
A balance of the above factors favors a stay in this matter. Most significantly, the
court finds that the interest of plaintiff to proceed expeditiously is outweighed by the
burden on defendants of having to participate in discovery while a motion to dismiss on
jurisdictional grounds is pending.
Furthermore, while the court typically discourages stays of discovery, the court
acknowledges the efficiency and fairness of delaying the proceedings pending
resolution of a motion to dismiss that could resolve this matter in its entirety. See Harris
v. United States, No. 09-cv-02658-PAB-KLM, 2010 WL 1687915, at *1 (D. Colo. Apr.
27, 2010) (“[n]either [the court’s] nor the parties’ time is well-served by being
4
involved in the ‘struggle over the substance of the suit’ when, as here, a dispositive
motion is pending.”) (citations omitted). “A stay of discovery pending the determination
of a dispositive motion ‘is an eminently logical means to prevent wasting the time and
effort of all concerned, and to make the most efficient use of judicial resources.’”
Chavous v. Dist. of Columbia Fin. Responsibility & Mgmt. Assistance Auth., 201 F.R.D.
1, 2 (D.D.C. 2001) (citation omitted). Finally, the court finds that the convenience of the
court, the interests of non-parties, and the public interest do not greatly favor one side.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendants Klinkler and Lombard’s Motion to Stay Discovery
and Vacate the Scheduling Conference (Docket No. 47) is GRANTED. This matter is
STAYED pending resolution of the pending motion to dismiss (Docket No. 46). It is
further
ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference set for July 8, 2014 at 2:30 p.m. is
VACATED.
Date: July 2, 2014
Denver, Colorado
s/ Michael J. Watanabe
Michael J. Watanabe
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?