Pree v. The Washington County Board of Supervisors et al

Filing 14

ORDER PARTIALLY STAYING CASE PENDING RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Magistrate Judge S. Allan Alexander on 6/27/16. (bnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

BRENDA PREE
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-cv-00122-SA-SAA

THE WASHINGTON COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, JESSE AMOS,
PAUL WATSON, JR. and MIKE GORDON,
in their INDIVIDUAL and in their OFFICIAL CAPACITIES

DEFENDANTS

ORDER PARTIALLY STAYING CASE
PENDING RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants have moved ore tenus to stay this case pending a ruling on their Motion to
Dismiss the claims against the defendants in their individual capacities based upon qualified
immunity (Docket 8) and the defamation claims against the Washington County Board of
Supervisors. (Docket 12). Although Local Uniform Civil Rule 16(b)(3)(B) provides that “filing
an immunity defense or jurisdictional 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,” the court has discretion to allow other claims in the action to
proceed if it finds that course is in the best interests of the parties and judicial economy. See,
e.g., Harris v. City of Balch Springs, 33 F. Supp.3d 730, 732-33 (N.D. Tex. 2014) (no authority
precludes discovery and pretrial matters regarding claims not protected by qualified immunity
doctrine), citing Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 312, 116 S.Ct. 834, 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996)
(Qualified immunity is “a right to immunity from certain claims, not from litigation in general.”).

Plaintiff has sued the Supervisors not only in their individual capacities, but also in their
official capacities. Based upon the facts alleged in the complaint, it appears that the defendants
will all be required to defend this action in that capacity in any event. It is also unlikely that the
breadth of discovery relating to individual capacity claims and the defamation claims will be
dramatically greater than that related to the official capacity claims. This information can be
obtained with relative ease and very little expense if the court should deny the pending motion to
dismiss the claims against the Supervisors in their individual capacities or the state law claims
against the Board of Supervisors. Further, because Mr. Virden and Mr. Phillips represent all
defendants, there will be no additional expense in their representation of all defendants at the
case management conference scheduled for July 28, 2016. Staying the entire case would, in the
court’s opinion, be counterproductive to all involved in this action. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED
that only discovery that is stayed is that relating to the claims against the defendants in
their individual capacities and the claims against the Board of Supervisors for defamation. All
other facets of this action will proceed as usual.
SO ORDERED, this, the 27th day of June, 2016.

/s/ S. Allan Alexander
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2