Malone v. Hakes

Filing 27

OPINION AND ORDER The Court DENIES the 24 Motion to Stay All Discovery Unrelated to the Immunity Issue. The Court ORDERS that the deadline for Defendant to respond to any discovery requests served by Plaintiff for which the response deadline has expired during the time this Motion to Stay has been pending is extended to April 11, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 3/14/18. (kjp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
HEATHER MALONE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE THOMAS HAKES, in his individual
capacity,
Defendant.

)
)
)
) Cause No.: 1:17-CV-505-WCL-PRC
)
)
)
)

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Stay All Discovery Unrelated to the Immunity
Issue [DE 24], filed by Defendant Judge Thomas Hakes on February 27, 2018. Plaintiff Heather
Malone filed a response on March 6, 2018, and Defendant filed a reply on March 13, 2018.
In the motion, Defendant represents that there is a “substantial likelihood that this case may
be disposed of based on immunity,” argues that “Plaintiff should not be permitted to engage in
discovery related to her purported claims until this Court has determined whether Plaintiff has a
claim resolved by the doctrine of absolute and/or qualified immunity,” and asks the Court to “stay
discovery pending ruling on the issue of immunity.” (ECF 24, ¶¶ 8, 10, “wherefore” clause).
First, there is no motion on the issue of immunity pending before the Court. Compare Barker
v. Vill. of Cahokia, 06-CV-830, 2007 WL 1757412 (N.D. Ill. June 19, 2007) (cited by Defendant)
(staying all discovery until the court resolved the immunity issues raised by the defendants in the
pending motion to dismiss). Moreover, Defendant has not identified the basis for his immunity
defense with any specificity.
Second, the Court held the preliminary pretrial conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 16(b) on January 25, 2018, and entered a scheduling order that same date. Although the
Report of Parties’ Planning Meeting lists “immunity” as a category of discovery, the Report does

not request, or even suggest, the bifurcation of discovery into stages. The report simply provides:
“Discovery will be needed on the following subjects: (i) Immunity (ii) Plaintiff’s claims and
damages, if any (iii) Defendant’s defenses.” (ECF 18, ¶ 4). Nor did counsel for Defendant request
bifurcated discovery at the conference, despite the representation that Defendant intended to conduct
expedited discovery on the matter of immunity. And, Defendant has not identified any change of
circumstances since the January 25, 2018 scheduling conference to justify not addressing the
bifurcation of discovery at the conference. Thus, Defendant has not shown good cause for modifying
the Rule 16(b) scheduling order entered by the Court on January 25, 2018. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b)(4).
For these reasons, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion to Stay All Discovery Unrelated
to the Immunity Issue [DE 24]. The Court ORDERS that the deadline for Defendant to respond to
any discovery requests served by Plaintiff for which the response deadline has expired during the
time this Motion to Stay has been pending is extended to April 11, 2018.
SO ORDERED this 14th day of March, 2018.
s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2