James v. State of Nebraska et al

Filing 82

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery (Filing No. 68 ) is granted. Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer (Filing No. 70 ) is granted; defendants shall have until May 9, 2011, to file their amended answe r. Defendants' Motion to Continue Progression Dates (Filing No. 77 ) is granted (except the deadline for summary judgment motions). Assuming the resolution of defendants' motion for summary judgment does not dispose of the case fully, the Court will conduct a scheduling conference to establish an amended progression order. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Filing No. 78 ) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ELAINE JAMES, M.D.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE STATE OF NEBRASKA;
)
NEBRASKA BOARD OF MEDICINE & )
SURGERY; JOANN SCHAEFER, M.D.,)
in her personal and official )
capacity; HELEN MEEKS, in her )
personal and official
)
capacity; DAVID DRYBURGH,
)
CARL V. SMITH, M.D.; VONN E. )
ROBERTS, M.D.; LARRY E.
)
BRAGG, M.D.; MICHAEL SITORIUS,)
M.D.; ARTHUR WEAVER, D.O.;
)
MERLE HENKENIUS; KAREN
)
HIGGINS, M.D., in their
)
personal capacities and their )
official capacities as members)
of the Nebraska Board of
)
Medicine and Surgery;
)
NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF
)
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
)
DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH,
)
an agency in the State of
)
Nebraska,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

8:09CV112

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on defendants’ Motion
to Stay Discovery (Filing No. 68), defendants’ Motion for Leave
to File Amended Answer (Filing No. 70), defendants’ Motion to
Continue Progression Dates (Filing No. 77), and plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel (Filing No. 78).

Defendants seek to stay

discovery and continue the progression of the case so that they
may assert a defense of qualified immunity.

Defendants

anticipate filing a motion for summary judgment on the issue of
qualified immunity by May 10, 2011, the current deadline for
summary judgment motions.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel requests

that defendants respond to interrogatories plaintiff served upon
defendants.
Qualified immunity generally protects government
officials from the burden of discovery.
F.3d 896, 903 (8th Cir. 2010).

Marksmeier v. Davie, 622

After reviewing the arguments of

the parties and the relevant law, the Court finds good cause
exists for continuing the progression of this case until after a
determination is made on defendants’ claims of qualified
immunity.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

In addition, the Court

finds defendants have shown cause for amending their answer.
Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709, 716 (8th Cir.
2008).
IT IS ORDERED:
1)

Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (Filing No.

68) is granted.
2)

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Amended

Answer (Filing No. 70) is granted; defendants shall have until
May 9, 2011, to file their amended answer.
3)

Defendants’ Motion to Continue Progression Dates

(Filing No. 77) is granted (except the deadline for summary
judgment motions).

Assuming the resolution of defendants’ motion

-2-

for summary judgment does not dispose of the case fully, the
Court will conduct a scheduling conference to establish an
amended progression order.
4)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Filing No. 78) is

denied.
DATED this 2nd day of May, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

-3-