Lumsden v. Davis et al

Filing 32

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 31 Motion for Protective Order. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants Motion for Protective Order 31 isgranted in part. It is finally ORDERED that discovery is limited to that which is necessary to address the qualified immunity issue. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (am)

Case 6:20-cv-00113-ADA Document 32 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WACO DIVISION
RAYMOND E. LUMSDEN #2109472
V.
LORIE DAVIS, et al.

§
§
§
§
§

W-20-CV-113-ADA

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (#31). Defendants
previously filed a Motion to Dismiss (#10), which the Court converted to a Motion for
Summary Judgment (#13). On June 15, 2020, Defendants filed a supplemental brief in
support of summary judgment to which they attached several affidavits and other records
(#23). Plaintiff subsequently filed a brief in opposition (# 27) and the matter is now ripe
for adjudication.
On September 28, 2020, Defendants received Plaintiff’s request for admissions.
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that they have raised the issue of
qualified immunity in their summary judgment briefing and have attached to that briefing
all the evidence the Court needs to resolve the issue of qualified immunity. Defendants
therefore request the Court relieve them from responding to any further discovery
requests from Plaintiff until it rules on their motion for summary judgment.
In Harlow, the Supreme Court held that until the issue of immunity is resolved,
discovery should not be allowed. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
However, not all discovery is forbidden; only discovery which is either avoidable or over
broad. Lion Boulos v. Wilson, 834 F.2d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1987). The Fifth Circuit has

1

Case 6:20-cv-00113-ADA Document 32 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 2

stated “when the district court ‘is unable to rule on the immunity defense without further
clarification of the facts’ and when the discovery order is ‘narrowly tailored to uncover
only those facts needed to rule on the immunity claim’ an order allowing such limited
discovery is neither avoidable nor overly broad.” Wicks v. Miss. State Emp’t Servs., 41
F.3d 991, 994 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting Lion Boulos, 834 F.2d at 507-08).
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (#31) is
granted in part.
It is finally ORDERED that discovery is limited to that which is necessary to
address the qualified immunity issue.
SIGNED on October 13, 2020

ALAN D ALBRIGHT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2