Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02568-MSK-BNB.
July 28, 2011
ORDER
This matter arises on the defendants' Motion for Stay of Discovery [Doc. # 40, filed 7/13/2011] (the "Motion to Stay Discovery"). Because the motion seeks a blanket stay of all discovery pending a ruling by the district judge on the defendants' motion for summary judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity, it is DENIED.
The district judge addressed the issue of staying discovery under circumstances such as these in Rome v. Romero, 225 F.R.D. 640 (D. Colo. 2004), and ruled:
Although the Supreme Court recognizes that a well-supported claim of qualified immunity should shield a defendant from unnecessary and burdensome discovery, invocation of the defense is not a bar to all discovery. First, it is essential to recognize that because the defense of qualified immunity is limited to particular claims against particular individuals, the corresponding protection against burdensome discovery is also limited. The defense is available only to individual government officials, not governmental entities. Furthermore, it is applicable only against claims for monetary damages, and has no application to claims for declaratory or injunctive relief. Finally, the doctrine is applicable only to claims against officers in their individual capacities; official-capacity claims, being the equivalent of a claim against an entity, are not subject to qualified immunity.
Even where a qualified immunity defense is asserted, some limited discovery is still permitted. As the Supreme Court in Crawford-El [v. Britton, 523 U.S. 5784 (1998)] observed, qualified immunity does not protect an official from all discovery, but only from that which is "broad reaching." 523 U.S. at 593 at n. 14. Limited discovery may be necessary when the doctrine is asserted in a motion for summary judgment on contested factual assertions. A plaintiff faced with a defense of qualified immunity in a motion for summary judgment may also be entitled to conduct discovery to explore facts essential to justify opposition to the motion as provided for by Rule 56(f).Id. at 643-44 (internal quotations and citations omitted except as noted).
In this case, a claim is asserted against Amos Medina, the sheriff of Costilla County, Colorado, in his official capacity.See Order [Doc. # 27] at p. 1. This claim, which is the "equivalent of a claim against an entity," Rome, 225 F.R.D. at 643, is not subject to the qualified immunity defense or a stay of discovery based on that defense. Id. Nor has there been any showing in the motion for a blanket stay that the plaintiff seeks to take unnecessary, burdensome, or broad-reaching discovery, which is the kind of discovery not permitted when qualified immunity is asserted. Id.
Defendant James Chavez may seek a protective order, if necessary, to preclude specific discovery which is unnecessary, burdensome, or broad-reaching. In this regard, however, I note that the qualified immunity defense may not be used to prevent discovery, even against a defendant who may invoke the defense, where the information is "independently discoverable . . . because the request relates directly to the specific conduct underlying the claims and the defense of immunity." Id. at 644. In other words, a defendant permitted to invoke the defense of qualified immunity may still be required to submit to discovery as a fact witness concerning the underlying events.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Stay Discovery [Doc. # 40] is DENIED.