Colson v. City of Alcoa, Tennessee et al (RLJ2)

Filing 107

ORDER denying as moot 103 the Motion to Lift Stay, Clarify the Status of the Current Stay in Place and/or Enter a Revised Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra C Poplin on May 2, 2018. (AYB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
ANNISSA COLSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF ALCOA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:16-CV-377-RLJ-DCP

ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02.
Now before the Court is a Motion to Lift Stay, Clarify the Status of the Current Stay in
Place and/or Enter a Revised Scheduling Order [Doc. 103] (“Motion to Lift Stay”), filed by
Defendants City of Alcoa, Tennessee, Chief Philip K. Potter, Lieutenant Keith Fletcher, Officer
Dustin Cook, and Officer Arik Wilson. Defendant Mandy England filed a Response [Doc. 104]
to the Motion, requesting that the Court bar any further discovery until her pending Motion for
Summary Judgment is decided.
By way of background, Defendant England filed a Motion to Stay [Doc. 70], requesting
that the Court stay discovery as to all Defendants based on the qualified immunity doctrine. The
motion also requested that the stay remain effective until the Court resolved her Motion for
Summary Judgment. The Court addressed the motion at a hearing on September 12, 2017. During
the hearing, the parties agreed to limit discovery but allow Plaintiff to depose Defendant England
and Defendant Bishop so that Plaintiff could respond to Defendant England’s Motion for Summary
Judgment. The parties also agreed to conduct their Rule 26(f) conference. Several Defendants

stated that they would like to proceed with discovery, and the parties agreed to work together on
completing discovery requests. The parties stated that if there were any issues with discovery,
they would contact the Court for guidance and/or resolution.
The instant Motion to Lift Stay requests that the Court clarify the current parameters of the
stay. On March 26, 2018, however, the District Judge entered a Memorandum Opinion [Doc. 105]
and an Order [Doc. 106], granting in part and denying in part Defendant England’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. Subsequently, defense counsel who filed the Motion to Lift Stay reported to
the Court that his Motion was moot unless an appeal was filed on qualified immunity grounds.
The Court finds that discovery should proceed accordingly because Defendant England’s Motion
for Summary Judgment has been resolved and no appeal has been filed. Accordingly, the Court
finds the Motion to Lift Stay, Clarify the Status of the Current Stay in Place and/or Enter a Revised
Scheduling Order [Doc. 103] is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
_________________________
Debra C. Poplin
United States Magistrate Judge

2