Cutright et v. Jones et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER granting defendants' 23 MOTION to stay; discovery in this matter is stayed pending resolution of the defendants' 16 motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 1/25/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (taq)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
TERRY CUTRIGHT, and
JOHN WILSON, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:16-6346

MAYOR DANNY JONES, individually
and in his official capacity,
THE CITY OF CHARLESTON, and its
Division THE CHARLESTON POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Pending is a motion by defendants to stay discovery
pending resolution of the motion to dismiss which raises issues of
qualified immunity, filed December 15, 2016.

On December 16,

2016, the court entered an order staying the Rule 26(a)(1)
disclosures and all events on the scheduling order until
plaintiffs had an opportunity to respond to the motion for a stay.
Plaintiffs have not responded to the motion.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(c)(1), the court has the
authority to stay discovery pending the outcome of a dispositive
motion.

See Thigpen v. United States, 800 F.2d 393, 396-397 (4th

Cir. 1986).

The court notes that the defendants’ motion to dismiss
could be dispositive of the matter, as they contend that the case
should be dismissed because some or all of the defendants are
entitled to statutory or qualified immunity.

There are no cross-

claims or counterclaims and all defendants join in the motion to
stay.
Defendants argue that it is proper to resolve the issues
of immunity in order to protect defendants from what may be
unnecessary and costly discovery.

Id.

As noted previously,

plaintiffs have not responded to the motion.
Having considered the applicable factors, particularly
in light of the assertion of qualified and statutory immunity by
the defendants, the court finds that a stay is warranted.

One of

the purposes of qualified immunity is to “free officials from the
concerns of litigation, including avoidance of disruptive
discovery.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 685 (2009) (internal

citations and quotations omitted).

By first determining whether

any of the defendants are entitled to qualified or statutory
immunity, the court can ensure that these parties do not lose some
of the protections of that immunity by participating in discovery
in the intervening time.

Furthermore, plaintiffs will not suffer

any clear hardship by waiting for a ruling on the motions to

2

Pursuant to L.R. Civ. P. 16.1, it is ORDERED that the
following dates are hereby fixed as the time by or on which
certain events must occur:
01/28/2016
Motions under F.R. Civ. P. 12(b), together with
dismiss. A stay would likely delay by only a few months or other
supporting briefs, memoranda, affidavits, any
such matter in support thereof. (All motions
recovery it receives in this case.
unsupported by memoranda will be denied without
prejudice pursuant to L.R. Civ. P. 7.1 (a)).
02/08/2016
Last day for Rule ORDERS that the
Accordingly, the court 26(f) meeting. defendants’
02/15/2016
motion to stay Last day to file Report of Parties= Planningto
discovery pending resolution of the motion
Meeting. See L.R. Civ. P. 16.1.
dismiss, filed December 15, 2016, be, and it hereby is, granted.
02/22/2016
Scheduling conference at 4:30 p.m. at the Robert C.
Byrd United discovery in this matter be, and it
It is further ORDERED that States Courthouse in Charleston, before
the undersigned, unless canceled. Lead counsel
directed to appear.
hereby is, stayed pending resolution of the defendants’ motion to
02/29/2016
dismiss.

Entry of scheduling order.

03/08/2016

Last day to serve F.R. Civ. P 26(a)(1) disclosures.

The Clerk is directed to transmit this order to all
The Clerk is requested to transmit this Order and
counsel to all counsel any record and to any unrepresented
Notice of record and of unrepresented parties.
parties.
ENTER: January 25, 2017
DATED: January 5, 2016
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge

3