Brown v. Uselton et al

Filing 17

ORDER STAYING CASE re 14 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 1/5/21. (bfg)

Case: 3:20-cv-00261-NBB-JMV Doc #: 17 Filed: 01/05/21 1 of 1 PageID #: 99

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
TAMARA BROWN
V.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-00261-NBB-JMV

MR. CORY USELTON ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER STAYING CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS
Local Uniform Civil Rule 16(b)(3)(B) provides that “a motion asserting an immunity
defense… stays the attorney conference and disclosure requirements and all discovery, pending
the court’s ruling on the motion, including any appeal. Whether to permit discovery on issues
related to the motion and whether to permit any portion of the case to proceed pending resolution
of the motion are decisions committed to the discretion of the court, upon a motion by any party
seeking relief.” A motion to dismiss raising an immunity defense has been filed. Doc. #14.
Accordingly, staying discovery in this case is appropriate at this time.
If any party desires to seek leave to take immunity-related discovery, it must file a motion
for leave to do so within seven (7) days hereof, setting forth the type and scope of such discovery
and an estimated time frame for constructing it. If any party objects to any motion for immunityrelated discovery, it shall file an objection within four (4) days following service of the motion.
IT IS, THERFORE, ORDERED that the aforementioned proceedings are hereby STAYED
pending a ruling on the immunity motion. The defendant shall notify the undersigned magistrate
judge within seven (7) days of resolution of the pending motion and shall submit a proposed order
lifting the stay.
SO ORDERED this, the 5th day of January, 2021.
/s/ Jane M. Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE