Gilmore v. Sicotte et al

Filing 31

MINUTE ORDER Granting 27 Defendant David Tessier's Motion to Stay Discovery, Stay Rule 26 Deadlines and Proceedings. This case is STAYED. Scheduling Conference 7/22/2015 09:00 AM is vacated. Granting in part and denying in part 24 Plaintiff's Motion to Introduce Supporting Documentation/Motion to Compel Discovery. Granting in part and denying in part 29 Plaintiff's Motion to Introduce Undisputed Facts. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 7/8/2015.(emill)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00741-PAB-MJW
WILLIAM GILMORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRUDY SICOTTE, and
DAVID TESSIER,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that:
•

Defendant David Tessier’s Motion to Stay Discovery, Stay Rule 26
Deadlines and Proceedings, and to Vacate the July 22, 2015 Scheduling
Conference (Docket No. 27) is GRANTED. Defendants are entitled to a
stay pending resolution of the motion to dismiss, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 685 (2009) (“The basic thrust of the qualified-immunity doctrine
is to free officials from the concerns of litigation, including ‘avoidance of
disruptive discovery.’”), particularly in cases like this one, see Rome v.
Romero, 225 F.R.D. 640 (Colo. 2004) (noting that stay is inappropriate
where qualified immunity is not raised early, and where qualified immunity
does not apply because only prospective relief or official-capacity
defendants are at issue). Further, the Court need not await Plaintiff’s
response before ruling on the motion. D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d) (“Nothing
in this rule precludes a judicial officer from ruling on a motion at any time
after it is filed.”).

•

The Scheduling Conference set for July 22, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. is
VACATED, to be re-set at a future date, if necessary.

•

Plaintiff’s Motion to Introduce Undisputed Facts (Docket No. 29) and
Motion to Introduce Supporting Documentation/Motion to Compel
Discovery (Docket No. 24) are both DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN
PART. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to offer evidence into the record for
purposes of establishing his case, this is not the proper time to do so and
the motion is denied. To the extent Plaintiff believes the facts and

documents set forth in these filings bear on the sufficiency of his
pleadings, and more specifically on Defendant Tessier’s Motion to Dismiss
(Docket No. 26), the motion is granted. The Court will consider the filings
to the extent they are properly considered under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure governing pleadings. The Court notes that Plaintiff has until
July 27, 2015, to file a formal response to the motion to dismiss (Docket
No. 26). See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
Date: July 8, 2015