Trujillo v. City of Hobbs et al

Filing 54

ORDER granting 37 Defendants' Motion for Stay of Discovery and of Scheduling Order Deadlines Pending a Ruling on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Garza. (atc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
NATHANIEL TRUJILLO,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. CV 17-53 MV/CG

CITY OF HOBBS, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
AND SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Stay of Discovery
and of Scheduling Order Deadlines Pending a Ruling on Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment, (Doc. 37), filed August 17, 2017. Plaintiff filed a response to the
Motion on September 8, 2017. (Doc. 50). Defendants have not filed a reply to the
Motion, and the time for doing so has passed.
In the Motion, Defendants ask the Court to stay the discovery and scheduling
order deadlines in this case pending on a ruling on their motion for summary judgment
based on qualified immunity. (Doc. 37 at 1-2). In response to the Motion, Plaintiff states
that he “does not oppose a stay of deadlines and a stay of comprehensive discovery,”
but he seeks discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) in order to respond to Defendants’
motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 50 at 1-2). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks discovery in
response to a subpoena served on the New Mexico State Police, and asks to take the
depositions of four New Mexico State Police investigating officers, three City of Hobbs’
Officers, and for the option to depose three additional witnesses. Id. at 2-6. Therefore,
Plaintiff asks the Court to deny Defendants’ motion for a stay of discovery to allow
Plaintiff to seek the above-described discovery. Id. at 6.

Once a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment based on qualified immunity
is filed, Defendants are entitled to a stay of discovery. 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”). Here,
Plaintiff does not oppose a stay of the deadlines in this case, or of comprehensive
discovery, but asks the Court to allow him to seek discovery needed to oppose
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has filed a separate motion for
discovery pursuant to Rule 56(d), (Doc. 51), and has asked for an extension of time to
respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment until after the Court rules on his
Rule 56(d) motion, (Doc. 52). The Court finds that Defendants are entitled to a stay of
the scheduling order deadlines and discovery in this case pending a ruling on their
motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The Court further finds that
Plaintiff has preserved his request to seek discovery under Rule 56(d), which will be
decided by separate order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Stay of Discovery
and of Scheduling Order Deadlines Pending a Ruling on Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment, (Doc. 37), is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________________
THE HONORABLE CARMEN E. GARZA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2