From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sampson v. Schenk

United States District Court, D. Nebraska
Jul 3, 2007
8:07CV155 (D. Neb. Jul. 3, 2007)

Opinion

8:07CV155.

July 3, 2007


ORDER


This matter is before the court on the defendants' William Lambert and Charlie O'Callaghan's Motion to Stay (Filing No. 17). These defendants seek a stay of any deadline to provide a Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) planning report or provide initial disclosures until after this court rules on the defendants' pending motion to dismiss (Filing No. 15). The defendants' motion challenges the plaintiff's complaint on the basis of sovereign immunity. Generally, "immunity operates to protect governmental officials from both the burdens of trial and discovery." Lovelace v. Delo , 47 F.3d 286, 287 (8th Cir. 1995) ( citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800, 814, 817-18 (1982)). The court finds the defendants have shown good cause for a stay until the merits of the dispositive motion is resolved. Upon consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The defendants' Motion to Stay (Filing No. 17) is granted.

2. The parties shall have twenty (20) days from the date an order is filed on the currently pending motion to dismiss (Filing No. 15), in which to file their planning report as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f).


Summaries of

Sampson v. Schenk

United States District Court, D. Nebraska
Jul 3, 2007
8:07CV155 (D. Neb. Jul. 3, 2007)
Case details for

Sampson v. Schenk

Case Details

Full title:NICHOLAS SAMPSON, Plaintiff, v. INV. EARL SCHENK, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. Nebraska

Date published: Jul 3, 2007

Citations

8:07CV155 (D. Neb. Jul. 3, 2007)