Wade v. Cain

Filing 57

ORDER denying 43 and 44 Motions for an Order Compelling Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes on 4/14/2016. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TROY D. WADE (#305401)

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
WARDEN N. BURL CAIN, ET AL.

NO. 15-0737-JWD-EWD

ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s two Motions for an Order Compelling Discovery (R. Docs.
43 and 44). These motions are opposed.
Plaintiff’s motions shall be denied at the present time. Pursuant to Order dated December
7, 2015 (R. Doc. 12), the Court directed the parties to complete discovery and to file cross-motions
for summary judgment within 90 days. Whereas Plaintiff thereafter timely propounded discovery
requests to Defendants (R. Docs. 15-22), Defendants have since filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment that asserts, inter alia, the affirmative defense of qualified immunity (R. Doc. 37).
Defendants have also filed a Motion to Re-set the Scheduling Deadlines and a Motion to Stay
Discovery (R. Docs. 39 and 40). Inasmuch as the assertion of the defense of qualified immunity
generally supports a suspension of discovery until the defense is resolved, the Court by separate
Order will impose a stay of discovery and re-set the discovery deadlines. See Schultea v. Wood,
47 F.3d 1427, 1434 (5th Cir. 1995) (finding that qualified immunity is an immunity, not just from
liability, but also from the burdens of discovery, and “[t]he district court … 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”). As a result, Defendants are not obligated to respond to Plaintiff’s outstanding

discovery until the Court issues a Ruling on Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment.
In addition, the Court finds that Plaintiff will not suffer any prejudice because he will have an
opportunity to engage in discovery after that Ruling. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for an Order Compelling Discovery (R. Docs.
43 and 44) are hereby DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on April 14, 2016.

S
ERIN WILDER-DOOMES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE