Bauer v. Glaser et al

Filing 46

ORDER granting 37 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 3/29/2017. (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JEREMY BAUER,

4:16-CV-04055-KES
Plaintiff,

vs.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

JACOB GLASER,
Defendant.
Plaintiff, Jeremy Bauer, an inmate at the South Dakota State
Penitentiary, filed a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant, Jacob
Glaser, moved for summary judgment, and the court denied his motion.
Defendant now moves to stay discovery until the court determines the issue of
qualified immunity.
Pursuant to Rule 26(c), “the court has discretion to stay discovery on
other issues until the critical issue has been decided.” 8A Charles Alan Wright,
Arthur R. Miller, and Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure
§ 2040 (3d ed.). A stay of discovery is within the district court’s discretion and
is reviewed by the appellate court for an abuse of that discretion. Steinbuch v.
Cutler, 518 F.3d 580, 588 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Lakin v. Prudential Sec., Inc.,
348 F.3d 704, 713 (8th Cir. 2003)); see also Maune v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec.
Workers, 83 F.3d 959, 963 (8th Cir. 1996) (upholding the district court's
granting of a party's request to stay discovery). Because the qualified

immunity issue may be dispositive, the court grants defendant’s motion to
stay discovery.
Bauer argues that the court should not grant the motion. He alleges
that defendant is merely trying to stall the litigation by moving for a protective
order. While defendant could have moved the case along in a more timely
manner, the issue of qualified immunity should be settled before discovery
begins. Further, Bauer does not show why he needs to conduct discovery at
this time. He argues that he needs to conduct discovery in order to support his
motion for summary judgment, but he has already filed his motion.
He also argues that he needs to know the prison’s procedures for
sending inmates’ legal mail. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will
only be granted if they show that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact. If they are able to show that, it does not matter whether Bauer
has access to the prison mail procedures. If he feels that his lack of discovery
causes him to be unable to fully respond to defendants’ eventual motion for
summary judgment, he should argue that in his response. At this time,
however, Bauer does not need to conduct discovery.
Thus,
IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s motion for protective order (Docket 37)
is granted. Discovery will be stayed until the court determines the issue of
qualified immunity. If summary judgment is denied, the stay on discovery will
be lifted.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant shall file his motion for
summary judgment by April 7, 2017.
Dated March 29, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/

Karen E. Schreier

KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3