Patterson v. City of McComb, Mississippi et al
Filing
52
ORDER granting defendants Pike County, Mississippi and Pike County Sheriff's Deputy Warren Gilmore's Motion for an Order Providing Discovery Protection Under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act 49 . FURTHER ORDERED that all discovery in this case is stayed until such time as the Court has ruled on the currently pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 9/18/2018 (ECW)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
ZACHARY PATTERSON
PLAINTIFF
VS.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-74(DCB)(MTP)
CITY OF McCOMB, MISSISSIPPI, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the Court on defendants Pike County,
Mississippi and Pike County Sheriff’s Deputy Warren Gilmore’s
Motion for an Order Providing Discovery Protection Under the
Mississippi Tort Claims Act (“MTCA”), Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1, et
sec. (docket entry 49).
The instant case arises out of the January 26, 2017, arrest of
plaintiff
Department.
Zachary
Patterson
by
the
City
of
McComb
Police
See Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (docket entry 13).
The plaintiff contends that his arrest and incarceration violated
both Federal and State law.
Id.
In their Answer (docket entry 20) to the plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint, Pike County and Deputy Gilmore invoke each and every
privilege, immunity, and restriction and/or limitation of the MTCA,
including, but not limited to, the provisions outlined in Sections
11-46-3, 11-46-5, 11-46-7, 11-46-9, 11-46-11, 11-46-13, and 11-4615 of the MTCA.
Subsequently, on July 20, 2018, Pike County and Deputy Gilmore
filed, among other things, a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
(docket entry 26) asserting that they are entitled to immunity
under the MTCA as to the plaintiff’s state law claims. That motion
is currently pending before the Court.
On August 9, 2018, plaintiff Patterson filed his Response in
Opposition to Motion to Stay (docket entry 39) and, simultaneously,
his Motion to Lift the Automatic Stay (docket entry 40).
The
plaintiff argues that he has asserted state law claims to which
Deputy
Gilmore’s
qualified
immunity
defense
does
not
apply.
Therefore, the plaintiff contends that he should “be allowed to
proceed with discovery on his state law claims” in spite of the
Automatic Stay (L.U.Civ.R. 16).
Id.
However, the plain language of Local Civil Rule 16(b)(3)
clearly provides that filing a motion based on immunity defenses
See L.U.Civ.R. 16(b)(3)(B).
stays all discovery in a case.
In
addition,
[f]iling 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.
Id.
This obviously includes discovery on claims unrelated to the
immunity defense.
Local Rule 16(b)(3)(B) contemplates that all
discovery, including that pertaining to state law claims, be
stayed.
2
Although Local Rule 16 does state that it is within the
Court’s discretion as to whether or not “any portion” of the case
should proceed pending resolution of the immunity motion, the Court
finds that the stay should not be lifted for the reasons set forth
below:
First, as the plaintiff notes in his Motion, his “Section 1983
claims and his state law claims are predicated on the same facts.”
Motion to Lift Automatic Stay (docket entry 40, p.5).
Thus,
lifting the stay and allowing discovery to go forward on the state
law
claims
would
wholly
undermine
Deputy
Gilmore’s
right
to
discovery protection under Section 1983.
Local Rule 16 and Fifth Circuit precedent, which necessitate
a stay in this matter under Deputy Gilmore’s qualified immunity
defense, do not anticipate an end run around the stay by allowing
discovery on related claims. Imani v. City of Baton Rouge, 2018 WL
2208221, at *6–7 (M.D. La. May 14, 2018)(noting that allowing
discovery to proceed against other defendants fails to consider the
basic thrust of qualified immunity - to free officials from the
concerns
of
discovery).
litigation,
including
avoidance
of
disruptive
Allowing discovery on state law claims based on the
same facts as the federal claims would wholly undermine the Rule 16
Stay.
In
addition,
the
MTCA
and
necessitate a stay in this matter.
3
its
interpreting
case
law
The plaintiff’s state law
claims
against
Pike
County
and
Deputy
Gilmore
are
governed
exclusively by the MTCA.
Notably, although the MTCA waives
sovereign
whole,
immunity
as
a
it
contains
a
number
of
restrictions, limitations, and immunities.
Pike County and Deputy Gilmore have filed a Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings that pertains to the plaintiff’s state
law claims, asking that they be dismissed based on application of
exemptions found in the MTCA.
See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1).
The current state of immunity law in Mississippi creates an
inference that willing participation in discovery when an immunity
defense is subject to resolution without the expense and delay of
discovery puts the entity at risk of a claim of waiver.
Alexander
v. Newton County, 124 So. 3d 688 (Miss.Ct.App. 2013); E. Miss.
State Hosp. v. Adams, 947 So. 2d 887, 891 (¶10)(Miss. 2007)
(defendant’s failure to timely and reasonably raise and pursue the
enforcement of any affirmative defense or other affirmative matter
or right that would serve to terminate or stay the litigation,
coupled with active participation in the litigation process, will
ordinarily serve as a waiver).
Given that Pike County and Deputy Gilmore currently have a
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pending that should be
dispositive as to all state law claims, allowing discovery to go
forward is inappropriate, especially considering the plaintiff’s
own admission that his federal law claims and his state law claims
4
“are predicated on the same facts.”
A district judge may exercise discretion to stay discovery
upon a showing of “good cause” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(c)(1).
See Landry v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n Int’l
AFL–CIO, 901 F.2d 404, 435 (5th Cir. 1990).
The above clearly
constitutes good cause as to staying discovery on the state law
claims.
Allowing discovery would not only run afoul of the
qualified immunity stay but would subject Pike County and Deputy
Gilmore to discovery in spite of their pending Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings (docket entry 26), which is likely to immunize
them from suit. Therefore, the Court shall maintain the stay as to
all discovery until such time as the Court has ruled on the
currently pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
ACCORDINGLY,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants Pike County, Mississippi
and Pike County Sheriff’s Deputy Warren Gilmore’s Motion for an
Order Providing Discovery Protection Under the Mississippi Tort
Claims Act (“MTCA”), Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1, et sec. (docket
entry 49) is GRANTED;
FURTHER ORDERED that all discovery in this case is stayed
until such time as the Court has ruled on the currently pending
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
5
SO ORDERED, this the 18th day of September, 2018.
/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?