Opinion
Case Number 08-14500-BC.
March 16, 2009
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO STAY DISCOVERY AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
On February 12, 2009, Defendant Robert J. Lesneski filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment accompanied by a twenty-one page brief, which all Defendants join. Dkt. # 24., 29 Defendant asserts, inter alia, qualified immunity because Plaintiffs' complaints do not allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. On February 20, 2009, Defendant filed a motion for a protective order and to stay discovery. Dkt. # 28. Defendant asserts that all discovery should be stayed until resolution of the qualified immunity issue. Plaintiffs did not file a response. On March 9, 2009, Defendant filed a related motion to quash Plaintiffs' subpoena to depose Defendant.
Qualified immunity is "an immunity from suit." Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). When a defendant asserts qualified immunity, "a ruling on that issue should be made early in the proceedings so that the costs and expenses of trial are avoided where the defense is dispositive." Id. Here, Plaintiffs allege violations of their rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. If qualified immunity is applicable in this instance, then the Court's subject matter jurisdiction may be affected with respect to Plaintiffs' pendant state-law causes of action. Consequently, the Court will grant Defendant's motions, stay all discovery pending resolution of the threshold qualified immunity issue, and quash the subpoena. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c) (subpoena may be quashed if "subjects a person to undue burden").
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant Robert J. Lesneski `s motion for protective order and staying discovery [Dkt. # 28] and motion to quash subpoena [Dkt. # 31] are GRANTED. Discovery with respect to all Defendants is STAYED until further order of this Court.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's subpoena of Defendant Robert J. Lesneski is QUASHED.