Sibley v. Dick

Full title: BRANDON SIBLEY ET AL v. SHELLY D. DICK ET AL

Court: United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana

Date published: Dec 4, 2023

3:23-CV-00024 (M.D. La. Dec. 4, 2023)

Opinion

3:23-CV-00024

12-04-2023

BRANDON SIBLEY ET AL v. SHELLY D. DICK ET AL

CAROL B. WHITEHURST, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

S. MAURICE HICKS, JUDGE.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

CAROL B. WHITEHURST, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Before the Court are two motions to stay discovery filed by Defendants, various parties referred to as the Marshal Defendants (Rec. Doc. 107) and Metropolitan Security Services, Inc. d/b/a Walden Security (Rec. Doc. 109). Plaintiff opposed the motions (Rec. Doc. 112).

Plaintiffs filed this suit against various officials and individuals for alleged violations of their rights relating to the Middle District of Louisiana's mask mandate during the Covid-19 pandemic. (Rec. Doc. 22). All defendants have filed motions to dismiss asserting immunity defenses inter alia. (Rec. Doc. 51; 57-1; 60-1). Defendants seek to stay discovery pending resolution of their motions to dismiss. The Fifth Circuit has instructed that discovery should not be permitted when a public official has asserted an immunity defense:

We hold the district court abused its discretion by deferring its ruling on qualified immunity and subjecting the immunity-asserting defendants to discovery in the meantime. Where public officials assert qualified immunity in a motion to dismiss, a district court must rule on

the motion. It may not permit discovery against the immunity-asserting defendants before it rules on their defense. (It is precisely the point of qualified immunity to protect public officials from expensive, intrusive discovery until and unless the requisite showing overcoming immunity is made.)

Carswell v. Camp, 54 F.4th 307, 311 (5th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, No. 22-959, 2023 WL 6377808 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2023) (emphasis in original) (cleaned up).¹

1 Although a limited discovery procedure may be permitted solely for the purpose of resolving a qualified immunity claim (see Carswell), Plaintiffs have not shown how discovery would aid the Court in that regard, and the Court appreciates no reason for permitting discovery at this stage.

The Court agrees that discovery should be stayed pending resolution of Defendants' motions to dismiss. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Stay Discovery filed by the Marshal

Defendants (Rec. Doc. 107) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Stay Discovery filed by Metropolitan Security Services, Inc. (Rec. Doc. 109) is GRANTED.