Tierra Blanca Ranch High Country Youth Program et al. v. Felipe Gonzales

Filing 63

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lourdes A. Martinez GRANTING 53 Motion to Stay Discovery. (atc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

TIERRA BLANCA RANCH HIGH COUNTRY
YOUTH PROGRAM, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

v.

No. CIV-15-0850 MCA/LAM

FELIPE GONZALES,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY [Doc. 53]
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion and Memorandum in
Support of Defendant’s Motion For Stay of Discovery and Request for Entry of a Protective
Order (Doc. 53), filed on December 14, 2016. Plaintiffs filed a response to the motion on
January 6, 2017. A reply was due on January 20, 2017, but none has been filed. Having
considered the motion, response, record of the case, and relevant law, the Court finds that the
motion is well-taken and should be GRANTED.
Defendant asks the Court to stay discovery in this case pending a ruling on his motion for
summary judgment based on qualified immunity (Doc. 51). [Doc. 53 at 3]. Plaintiffs object to a
stay of discovery because they contend that they need certain discovery to be able to respond to
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See [Doc. 56 at 2].
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion to stay discovery is
without merit. Once a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment based on qualified immunity
is filed, a Defendant is entitled to a stay of discovery. See Jiron v. City of Lakewood, 392 F.3d
410, 414 (10th Cir. 2004); Workman, et al. v. Jordan, et al., 958 F. 2d 332, 336 (10th Cir. 1992)

(“[W]e reiterate that qualified immunity is not only a defense to liability but also entitlement to
immunity from suit and other demands of litigation,” citing Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231
(1991)).

While Plaintiffs are correct that they may be entitled to discovery pursuant to

Rule 56(d) in order to respond to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs have
already made such a request in response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. See
[Doc. 61] (Plaintiffs’ response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, in which Plaintiffs
set forth their Rule 56(d) request for additional discovery). Therefore, Plaintiffs’ request for
discovery relating to Defendants’ summary judgment motion is currently before the presiding
judge in relation to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion and Memorandum in
Support of Defendant’s Motion For Stay of Discovery and Request for Entry of a Protective
Order (Doc. 53) is GRANTED and discovery is stayed pending a ruling on Defendants’ motion
to dismiss based on qualified immunity, subject to the presiding judge allowing discovery
pursuant to Rule 56(d).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________________
LOURDES A. MARTÍNEZ
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2