Greene v. Greenwood Public School District et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying 7 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 7/1/2016. (bbf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
MONTRELL GREENE
VS.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-CV-93-GHD-JMV

GREENWOOD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE
IMMUNITY RELATED DISCOVERY
This matter is before the court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Take Immunity
Related Discovery [7]. For the reasons explained below, the motion will be denied.
This action arises out of the alleged wrongful termination of Plaintiff’s contract to serve
as a school superintendent. He asserts, insofar as federal claims are concerned, that the
termination deprived him of property and liberty interests without due process. On June 6, 2016,
all Defendants moved to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the
individual Defendants in their individual capacities moved to dismiss on the basis of qualified
immunity [3].
Local Uniform Civil Rule 16(b)(3)(B) provides that “[f]iling . . . a motion asserting an
immunity defense or jurisdictional 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 . . . [is a] decision committed to the
discretion of the court.”
On June 16, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion for “leave to take immunity
related discovery.” Though the Plaintiff’s motion is styled as aforesaid and seeks discovery
related to qualified immunity, the court notes that buried in the motion is also a request to take
discovery relevant to subject matter jurisdiction. Motion for Leave to Take Immunity Related

Discovery [7] at 5. The type of discovery sought by Plaintiff is described vaguely as “written
discovery” and depositions of present and former Board members of the Defendant, the interim
superintendent of the Defendant school district, and “others who were present at said meeting
[where his termination was voted on.]” Id. The Plaintiff alleges this discovery will enable him
“to ferrett out the true reasons for his termination by the individual Defendants and establish that
[the individual Defendants’] actions were not objectively reasonable.” Id. Further, the Plaintiff
contends that this discovery will enable Plaintiff to obtain “facts and evidence solely in the
possession of the individual Defendants.” Id.
The Defendants have opposed the discovery motion arguing that the issue of whether the
court has jurisdiction should be decided first. However, that argument, in the court’s view, does
not entirely resolve the issue of whether any discovery should be permitted since Plaintiff
apparently seeks to take discovery related not only to the qualified immunity defense but to the
subject matter jurisdiction issue as well.
Nevertheless, the court finds that Plaintiff’s motion to take discovery related to the
jurisdictional issue—as distinct from the qualified immunity defenses—is wholly unsupported by
any facts or argument. Plaintiff has failed to show that discovery of “the true reasons for his
termination”—much less the broad sweeping discovery of “other facts and evidence solely in
possession of the individual Defendants”—has any relevance to the subject matter jurisdiction
issue. That issue is, as the undersigned appreciates it, a purely legal one premised on undisputed
facts regarding the procedural process pursued by the Plaintiff following notice of his
termination from the position of superintendent. In light of Plaintiff’s failure to articulate why
and how any of the discovery proposed by him would be relevant on the issue of subject matter
jurisdiction presently before the Court, the motion for such discovery will be denied.

For the much the same reason, the request for discovery as concerns the motion to
dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity is not well taken. Repeatedly the Fifth Circuit has
admonished that qualified “immunity extends beyond a defense to liability to protect government
officials from the burdens of litigation, including ‘pretrial discovery, which is costly, timeconsuming, and intrusive.’” Webb v. Livingston, 618 F. App'x 201, 206 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting
Backe v. LeBlanc, 691 F.3d 645, 648 (5th Cir. 2012)). As such, any discovery pertaining to
qualified immunity “must be narrowly tailored to uncover facts that the court needs to rule on
the defense itself.” Waller v. City of Fort Worth, 2015 WL 5836041, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 2,
2015) (citing Wicks v. Miss. State Employment Servs., 41 F.3d 991, 994 (5th Cir. 1995)). Only if
the court identifies any relevant areas of inquiry may the court properly issue a discovery order
to address them. See Waller, 2015 WL 5836041, at *3; see also Backe, 691 F.3d at 648.
Here, the Plaintiff has wholly failed to identify or explain any specific facts it seeks the
discovery of that are relevant to the dismissal of his claims on the basis of qualified immunity.
Accordingly, the discovery sought by Plaintiff and allegedly related to the qualified immunity
motion will not be permitted.

SO ORDERED, this the 1st day of July, 2016.
/s/ Jane M. Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE