Walker v. LeBlanc et al

Filing 17

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 13 Motion to Stay Discovery. It is DENIED in such that Defendants are to respond, within 14 days of the date of this Order, to the Plaintiff's discovery of "identification information", by filing any last known addresses under seal with the court. In all other respects the 13 Motion to Stay is GRANTED, and discovery shall be stayed pending a Ruling on Defendant's 8 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr on 12/17/2013. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MARK E. WALKER (#550507)

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
JAMES LeBLANC, ET AL.

NO. 13-0553-JJB-RLB

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (Rec.
Doc. 13), pursuant to which they seek a stay of discovery in this proceeding until the Court
issues a Ruling on their pending Motion to Dismiss which asserts the defense of qualified
immunity. This Motion is opposed.
Whereas the defendants are correct that the assertion of the defense of qualified immunity
may support the imposition of certain limitations upon discovery in a civil action, see Schultea
v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, 1434 (5th Cir. 1995), it is nonetheless appropriate to allow discovery in
certain instances, i.e., when the discovery is targeted toward the issue of qualified immunity, id.,
or when the discovery seeks the identification of unidentified defendants. See Cowart v. Dallas
County Jail, 439 Fed. App. 332, 333 (5th Cir. 2011) (“Cowart was likely entitled to conduct
discovery to determine the identities of the unnamed defendants, as ... readily available
documentation would reveal the identities of some of the John Doe defendants”); Murphy v.
Kellar, 950 F.2d 290, 292-93 (5th Cir. 1992). In the instant case, the plaintiff has propounded
discovery to the defendants wherein he requests, inter alia, information regarding the identities
and last known addresses of certain persons identified as “John Doe” and “Jane Doe” defendants
in his Complaint. See Rec. Doc. 9. The Court concludes that it is appropriate for the defendants
to respond to this discovery. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the defendants’ Motion to Stay (Rec. Doc. 13) be and it is hereby
DENIED IN PART, such that the defendants are directed to respond, within fourteen (14) days
of the date of this Order, to the plaintiff’s discovery which seeks “identification information”
relative to certain designated individuals, together with “their last known address[es],” if
appropriate. See Rec. Doc. 9 at Request No. 3. The defendants are advised that they should file
any pertinent last known addresses under seal with the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants’ Motion to Stay (Rec. Doc. 13) be
and it is hereby GRANTED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, and discovery shall be stayed in
this proceeding pending a Ruling on the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss which asserts the
defense of qualified immunity.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on December 17, 2013.

s

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE