Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00578-REB-KLM.
June 8, 2011
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Qualified Immunity Defense Asserted in Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) [Docket No. 21; Filed June 7, 2011] (the "Motion"). On June 6, 2011, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 20] in which they contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Defendants now seek a stay of discovery until the Motion to Dismiss is resolved. Motion [#21] at 2 ("Once asserted, until the issue of qualified immunity is resolved, discovery should not be allowed." (citing Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 646 n. 6 (1987); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817-18 (1982); Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) ("Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery."))).
The Court has not yet held a scheduling conference in this case. Accordingly, no discovery parameters or case management deadlines have been set. A Scheduling Conference is set for August 18, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. Minute Order [Docket No. 18]. The Court finds that proceeding with discovery before this Conference is unwarranted. If Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [#20] remains pending at the time of the Scheduling Conference, they may re-file a motion seeking a discovery stay.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#21] is GRANTED in part to the extent that it seeks to preclude discovery prior to the Scheduling Conference.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion [#21] is otherwise DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall not engage in discovery until after the Scheduling Conference on August 18, 2011.