White v. Topeka, City of et al

Filing 24

ORDER granting 17 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 12/13/2018. (srj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
KELLY WHITE, individually, as administrator
of the estate of Dominique T. White, deceased,
and as next friend of minor grandchildren
TUW, JSW, JKW, and NCW,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-4050-DDC

CITY OF TOPEKA, KANSAS, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
The plaintiff, Kelly White, brings this Section 1983 action against Michael Cruse,
Justin Mackey, and the City of Topeka, Kansas, alleging constitutional violations arising
out of the shooting death of his son, Dominique T. White. Defendants Cruse and Mackey
have filed a motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 17), predicated on their intent to file an
early motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity. Plaintiff opposes
defendants’ motion to stay, largely based on his expectation that discovery will be
required before he can respond to the anticipated summary-judgment motion. Plaintiff
further asserts there’s no basis to stay discovery related to his claim against the City. For
the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion to stay is granted.
“The Supreme Court has emphasized the broad protection qualified immunity
affords, giving officials ‘a right, not merely to avoid standing trial, but also to avoid the
1

burdens of such pretrial matters as discovery.’”1 “[B]ecause qualified immunity protects
against the burdens of discovery as well as trial, a district court may stay discovery upon
the filing of a dispositive motion based on qualified immunity.”2 There are, however,
limited occasions in which “narrowly tailored” discovery may be permitted if necessary
to enable a district court to decide a qualified-immunity question raised by a motion.3
The undersigned finds that the issue of whether (and to what extent) discovery is
necessary for plaintiff to oppose defendants’ summary-judgment motion will be more
efficiently addressed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) by the presiding U.S. District Judge,
Daniel D. Crabtree, after defendants have filed their anticipated dispositive motion. The
scheduling-order deadline for defendants to file their early motion for summary judgment
based on qualified immunity is December 28, 2018 (ECF No. 19). In light of the
qualified-immunity defenses asserted and the fast-approaching dispositive-motion
deadline, the court finds good cause to stay discovery pending Judge Crabtree’s
resolution of any Rule 56(d) request by plaintiff.
Additionally, given the overlapping facts supporting plaintiff’s claims against each
of the defendants in this case, the court concludes the potential burden and prejudice

1

Medina v. Cram, 252 F.3d 1124, 1127 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting Behrens v.
Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 308 (1996)); see also Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818
(1982).
2

Stonecipher v. Valles, 759 F.3d 1134, 1148 (10th Cir. 2014).

3

Id. at 1149.
2

resulting from bifurcated discovery outweigh any potential benefit.

Accordingly,

discovery shall be stayed as to all defendants.
In consideration of the foregoing, and upon good cause shown,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.

Defendants’ motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 17) is granted.

2.

All pretrial proceedings in this case, including discovery, are stayed until

further order of the court.
3.

The parties shall confer and submit an updated Rule 26(f) planning meeting

report to the undersigned’s chambers within 2 business days of any ruling by Judge
Crabtree deferring or denying defendants’ early summary-judgment motion.
Dated December 13, 2018, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ James P. O’Hara
James P. O’Hara
U.S. Magistrate Judge

3