Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01135-PAB-KMT
05-16-2012
GEORGE FRANCIS OSEI, Plaintiff, v. JAMES BROOKS, DAVID NGUYEN, T. TOBIN, and THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Defendants.
Raymond K. Bryant Michiko A. Brown
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
FTR - Courtroom C-201
Deputy Clerk, Nick Richards
Raymond K. Bryant
Michiko A. Brown
COURTROOM MINUTES / MINUTE ORDER
MOTION HEARING
Court in session: 1:33 p.m.
Court calls case. Appearances of counsel.
Motion Hearing is called regarding Defendants' Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Their Motions for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 69, filed April 4, 2012], Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of the Motions for Summary Judgment (Document 69) [Doc. No. 73, filed April 9, 2012], and Plaintiff's Motion to Sever and Strike Defendants' Motion for Sanctions [Doc. No. 104, filed May 14, 2012].
Oral argument from defendant.
Oral argument from plaintiff.
Court in Recess: 3:27 p.m.
Court in Session: 3:52 p.m.
It is ORDERED: Defendants' Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery [69] is GRANTED. Discovery is STAYED only until District Judge Philip A. Brimmer rules on the issue of qualified immunity as to: 1) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief Relating to the Toilet Water Incident [Doc. No. 66, filed April 3, 2012]; and 2) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Third and Fourth Claims for Relief [Doc. No. 67, filed April 3, 2012].
The court voices its concern regarding the lack of discovery provided to plaintiff to respond to the substantive assertions in the pending summary judgment motion. The court finds, however, that the issue of qualified immunity must be resolved before discovery on the merits of the case may proceed.
It is ORDERED: Plaintiff's Oral Motion for Reconsideration on the ruling on Doc. No. 69 is DENIED.
It is ORDERED: Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of the Motions for Summary Judgment (Document 69) [Doc. No. 73, filed April 9, 2012] is DENIED, and Plaintiff's Motion to Sever and Strike Defendants' Motion for Sanctions [Doc. No. 104, filed May 14, 2012] is DENIED.
Court in Recess: 4:16 p.m.
Hearing concluded.
Total In-Court Time 02:18
*To obtain a transcript of this proceeding, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at (303) 825-6119.