Spencer v. Rosso et al

Filing 53

ORDER granting 14 Motion to Stay Discovery, and discovery in the above- captioned proceeding is hereby STAYED until the issuance of a Ruling in connection with the defendants' pending 9 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 9/14/2015. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

EDMOND D. SPENCER (#253212)

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
WILLIAM ROSSO, ET AL.

NO. 15-0078-JWD-RLB

ORDER
Before the Court is the defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (R. Doc. 14). This motion
is opposed.
Inasmuch as the defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity in their
pending Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 9), and inasmuch as the assertion of this defense normally
warrants a discontinuation of discovery until the Court has addressed the viability of the defense,
it appears that the defendants are entitled to the relief requested. See Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d
1427, 1434 (5th Cir. 1995) (finding that, because qualified immunity is an immunity not just from
liability but also from the burdens of discovery, “[t]he district court may ban discovery at [the]
threshold pleading stage and may limit any necessary discovery to the defense of qualified
immunity .... [and] need not allow any discovery unless it finds that plaintiff has supported his
claim with sufficient precision and factual specificity to raise a genuine issue as to the illegality
of defendant’s conduct at the time of the alleged acts”). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (R. Doc. 14) be and it
is hereby GRANTED, and discovery in the above-captioned proceeding is hereby STAYED
until the issuance of a Ruling in connection with the defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss (R.
Doc. 9).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, upon the issuance of a Ruling in connection with the
defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 9), the parties may recommence discovery
without further order from the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, upon the issuance of a Ruling in connection with the
defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 9), the parties shall complete discovery within
ninety (90) days of the Court’s Ruling and shall file cross-motions for summary judgment within
one hundred twenty (120) days of the Court’s Ruling.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on September 14, 2015.

s

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE