Chastain v. Sarasin

Full title: BRIAN CHASTAIN, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM J. SARASIN, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Feb 5, 2009

CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-CV-12299-DT (E.D. Mich. Feb. 5, 2009)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-CV-12299-DT.

February 5, 2009

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY

MONA MAJZOUB, Magistrate Judge

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery. (Docket no. 14). This is a pro se civil rights action filed by a Michigan state prisoner. (Docket no. 1). Defendants Sarasin and Birkett have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 18) which is pending now. Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order, and the time for responding has now expired. All pretrial matters have been referred to the undersigned for ruling. (Docket no. 16). The Court dispenses with oral argument pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e). Defendants' motion is now ready for ruling.

Defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity as state employees in their motion for summary judgment. (Docket no. 18). The Sixth Circuit has made clear that when such a motion is filed discovery should not be allowed until after the immunity question is resolved. Skousen v. Brighton High School, 305 F.3d 520, 526-27 (6^th Cir. 2002). In accordance with this authority, discovery will be stayed pending consideration of Defendants' summary judgment motion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery (docket no. 14) is GRANTED and discovery is stayed until further order of the Court.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a), the parties have a period of ten days from the date of this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be permissible under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).