Lomas v. Kwarteng et al

Filing 35

ORDER granting in part 32 Motion for Protective Order.(Signed by Magistrate Judge Jason B Libby) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
JAVIER C LOMAS,
Plaintiff,
VS.
ISAAC KWARTENG, et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

December 21, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-283

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
Pending is Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order. (D.E. 32). The motion is
GRANTED in part as set forth below. Discovery shall continue on the issue of whether
Defendants committed a constitutional violation under the current law, specifically,
whether the medical treatment of Plaintiff, or lack of treatment, amounted to deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs.

Discovery may also continue on the

issue of whether Defendants’ actions were objectively unreasonable in light of the law
that was clearly established at the time of the relevant actions. Defendants are otherwise
protected from answering discovery.

Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s discovery

requests within these parameters.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a Texas inmate appearing pro se in this civil rights action. Plaintiff

alleges he has Hepatitis C and cirrhosis of the liver and that Texas Department of
Criminal Justice (TDCJ) and Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB) personnel
1/4

were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical conditions. He brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Isaac Kwarteng, Tanya Lawson, and Monica
Pickthall filed the instant motion for a protective order to stay discovery because they
have asserted the defense of qualified immunity.
II.

APPLICABLE LAW
When a defendant invokes the defense of qualified immunity, the burden shifts to

the plaintiff to demonstrate the inapplicability of the defense. McClendon v. City of
Columbia, 305 F.3d 314, 323 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc). To discharge this burden, the
plaintiff must satisfy a two-prong test. Atteberry v. Nocona Gen. Hosp., 430 F.3d 245,
251-52 (5th Cir. 2005).

First, he must claim that the defendants committed a

constitutional violation under current law. Id. (citation omitted). Second, he must claim
that the defendants’ actions were objectively unreasonable in light of the law that was
clearly established at the time of the actions complained of. Id. While it will often be
appropriate to conduct the qualified immunity analysis by first determining whether a
constitutional violation occurred and then determining whether the constitutional right
was clearly established, that ordering of the analytical steps is no longer mandatory.
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (receding from Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S.
194 (2001)).
Qualified immunity is a defense to liability and immunity from suit. Swint v.
Chambers Cnty. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 42 (1995); Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526
(1985). Qualified immunity protects public officials from “broad-ranging discovery that

2/4

can be peculiarly disruptive of effective government.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S.
635, 639 n.5 (1987) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817 (1982)).
III.

ANALYSIS
Qualified immunity does not shield government officials from all discovery but

only from discovery which is either avoidable or overly broad. Lion Boulos v. Wilson,
834 F.2d 504, 507 (5th Cir.1987); see also Wicks v. Miss. State Empl’t Servs., 41 F.3d
991, 994 (5th Cir.1995). Defendants’ motion indicates Plaintiff served Defendants with
written discovery. However, Defendants fail to explain how this discovery is overly
broad or otherwise unnecessarily burdensome. Defendants seek relief from having to
respond to any discovery which would deprive Plaintiff relevant discovery to address the
issue of qualified immunity.

Plaintiff’s medical condition, his treatment, lack of

treatment, Defendants’ involvement in Plaintiff’s treatment and the decisions of what
treatment to provide, and the institutional regulations or guidelines involved in
determining what treatment is required or denied are important in addressing the issue of
qualified immunity. Based on the information presented in Defendants’ motion for a
protective order, the undersigned finds that a complete stay of discovery is not
appropriate at this stage of the proceedings, however, discovery shall be limited in scope.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order (D.E. 32) is GRANTED in part.

Discovery shall continue on the issue of whether Defendants committed a constitutional
violation under the current law and were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious
medical condition. Specifically, Defendants shall respond to discovery that addresses
3/4

Plaintiff’s medical condition and treatment or lack of treatment and applicable
regulations or guidelines involving the treatment of Plaintiff.

Discovery may also

continue on the issue of whether Defendants’ actions were objectively unreasonable in
light of the law that was clearly established at the time of the relevant actions.
Defendants are otherwise protected from answering discovery.
ORDERED this 20th day of December, 2017.
___________________________________
Jason B. Libby
United States Magistrate Judge

4/4