Wright et al v. Pierce County et al

Filing 84

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle granting 46 Motion for Protective Order; granting 48 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.(TG)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7

8 HAROLD H. WRIGHT, JR., and SYDNI
WRIGHT, husband and wife,
9
Plaintiffs,
10
v.
11
PIERCE COUNTY, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13

CASE NO. C11-5154 BHS
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON
THE PLEADINGS

14
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion for protective order
15
(Dkt. 46) and motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 48).
16
On June 6, 2013, Defendants filed both of the instant motions. Defendants request
17
that the Court dismiss all Defendants in their official capacity as redundant claims (Dkt.
18
48) and request that the Court stay discovery requests addressed to Defendants in their
19
official capacity (Dkt. 46). With regard to the former, Defendants have cited authority
20
that all claims against individuals in their official capacity may be dismissed as
21
redundant. Dkt. 48 at 2–3. Plaintiffs submitted twenty-one pages of briefing essentially
22

ORDER - 1

1 conceding the issue. See Dkt. 77 at 21 (“To the extent defendants merely wish to
2 concede liability of the individual defendants acting in their ‘official capacity’ lays with
3 the public entities, plaintiffs do not object.”) Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants’
4 motion.
5

With regard to the motion for a protective order, discovery against Defendants at

6 this point is not warranted. Qualified immunity and absolute immunity are immunities
7 from suit. See Dkt. 46 at 3–4. Allowing discovery at this early stage of the proceeding
8 would undermine the protection provided by such immunities. Plaintiffs, however, argue
9 that discovery is needed to overcome Defendants’ dispositive motions. Dkt. 52 at 6–11.
10 If true, then other rules of civil procedure provide Plaintiffs adequate relief. See Fed. R.
11 Civ. P. 56(d). Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for a protective order
12 and discovery against Defendants is hereby stayed pending the resolution of Defendants’
13 motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 35).
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated this 16th day of July, 2013.

A

16
17

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 2