Bright v. Tunica County School District et al

Filing 10

ORDER granting 9 Motion to Stay pursuant to L.U.Civ.R. 16(b)(3)(B). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 10/26/2015. (bbf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
MATTIE BRIGHT AS GUARDIAN
AND NEXT KIN FOR HER DAUGHTER,
JANE DOE
VS.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:15-cv-149-NBB-JMV

TUNICA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
BERNARD STEPHEN CHANDLER,
SUPERINTENDENT, IN HIS OFFICIAL
AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; MILTON
HARDRICT, PRINCIPAL, IN HIS OFFICIAL
AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; AND
STANLEY ELLIS, ASSISTANT
SUPERINTENDENT AND TITLE IX
COORDINATOR, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; AND BRITTANY
BROWN, TEACHER, IN HER OFFICIAL AND
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES

DEFENDANTS

ORDER STAYING CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS
Local Uniform Civil Rule 16(b)(3)(B) provides that “[f]iling … an immunity defense …
motion stays the attorney conference and disclosure requirements and all discovery not related to
the issue pending the court’s ruling on the motion, including any appeal. Whether to permit
discovery on issues related to a motion asserting an immunity defense . . . is a decision
committed to the discretion of the court.” L.U. CIV. R. 16(b)(3)(B). Accordingly, should the
parties seek discovery on the immunity issue, they should, within 10 days hereof, file a motion
outlining, in general terms, the discovery sought and the time necessary to conduct the same.
IT IS, THERFORE, ORDERED that the aforementioned proceedings are hereby
STAYED pending a ruling on the immunity motion. Defendants shall notify the undersigned

magistrate judge within seven (7) days of a decision on the immunity defense motion and shall
submit a proposed order lifting the stay.
SO ORDERED this, the 26th day of October, 2015.
/s/ Jane M. Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE