From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marten v. Richards

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Tacoma
Apr 30, 2010
CASE NO. C09-5733FDB/JRC (W.D. Wash. Apr. 30, 2010)

Opinion

CASE NO. C09-5733FDB/JRC.

April 30, 2010


ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY


This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrate Judges' Rules MJR 1, MJR 3, and MJR 4. Before the court is defendant's motion asking that discovery be stayed pending disposition of a motion for summary judgment, which raises an affirmative defense of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity is immunity from suit, not just immunity from liability, Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). One of the considerations noted by the Supreme Court in discussing qualified immunity is the social cost to government and the public when government resources are expended on discovery prior to the qualified immunity defense being decided. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818. The motion to stay discovery is GRANTED.

The Clerk's Office is directed to remove Dkt. # 15 from the Court's calendar and send plaintiff a copy of this order.


Summaries of

Marten v. Richards

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Tacoma
Apr 30, 2010
CASE NO. C09-5733FDB/JRC (W.D. Wash. Apr. 30, 2010)
Case details for

Marten v. Richards

Case Details

Full title:CURTIS A. MARTEN, Plaintiff, v. HENRY RICHARDS, et al. Defendants

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Tacoma

Date published: Apr 30, 2010

Citations

CASE NO. C09-5733FDB/JRC (W.D. Wash. Apr. 30, 2010)

Citing Cases

Lewis v. Phillips

Other district courts have reached the same conclusion involving similar restrictions. See, e.g., Hedgespeth…