Troupe v. Cornish et al

Filing 17

ORDER granting 16 Motion for Protective Order; all discovery shall be STAYED pending further order of this Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG; cc to Plaintiff)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

10
11
12

DAVID TROUPE,
Plaintiff,

13

No. 14-5733 RBL/KLS

v.
14
15

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER – STAYING
DISCOVERY PENDING DISPOSITIVE
MOTIONS

SGT TRACY CORNISH, CUS
KENNETH E. McKENNEY,

16

Defendants.

17
18
19
20

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order. Dkt. 16. Defendants move
to stay discovery pending adjudication of their summary judgment motion, which is ripe for
review Dkt. 12. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion to stay discovery and has filed his

21
22

response to the motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 14.
BACKGROUND

23
24

On September 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that

25

Defendants violated his constitutional rights when they destroyed a sealed envelope addressed to

26

defendant Cornish which plaintiff alleges contained a law suit and evidence. Dkt. 5.
ORDER - 1

1

Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims and

2

based on the fact that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. 12.

3
4

On December 1, 2014, Defendants received sets of Interrogatories containing a number
of interrogatories propounded to each defendant. Dkt. 16-1, Declaration of Timothy Feulner, ¶

5
2. On December 2, 2014, Defendants’ counsel conferred with Plaintiff to discuss postponing
6
7
8

discovery until after the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ dispositive motion. Id., ¶ 3. The parties
were unable to reach an agreement. Id.
DISCUSSION

9
10
11
12

The court has broad discretionary powers to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle,
863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Upon showing of good cause, the court may deny or limit
discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). A court may relieve a party of the burdens of discovery while a

13
dispositive motion is pending. DiMartini v. Ferrin, 889 F.2d 922, 926 (9th Cir. 1989), amended
14
15
16

by 906 F.2d 465 (9th Cir. 1990); Rae v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1984).
When government officials raise the issue of qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has

17

held that discovery should not proceed until the threshold issue of immunity has been resolved.

18

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982); Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 646 n.6

19
20

(1987); DiMartini, 889 F.2d at 926. In this case, Defendants assert that there is a serious
question as to the merits of Plaintiff’s Complaint and that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

21
22
23

A ruling on this motion may resolve all or some of Plaintiff’s claims. Failing to stay
discovery while the motion is pending will burden the State and waste State resources.

24

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

25

(1)

26

Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. 16) is GRANTED; all discovery

shall be STAYED pending further order of this Court.
ORDER - 2

1
2
3

(2)

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to counsel for

Defendants.
DATED this 21st day of January, 2015.

4

A

5
6

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER - 3