Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-00059-WDM-MEH.
April 27, 2010
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT WEIR'S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
Pending before the Court is Defendant Weir's Motion to Stay Discovery [filed April 26, 2010; docket #14]. The motion is referred to this Court for disposition. (Docket #15.) Defendant Weir represents that counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant LaCabe do not object to the relief requested. (Docket #14 at 1-2.) For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant Weir's Motion to Stay Discovery.
Defendant Weir filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 1, 2010, raising the defense of absolute immunity pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. ( See docket #6.) Defendant Weir requests the Court to stay discovery, including Rule 26(a) disclosures, until the District Court rules on Defendant Weir's claim of immunity.
The Supreme Court established that "[o]ne of the purposes of immunity, absolute or qualified, is to spare a defendant not only unwarranted liability, but unwarranted demands customarily imposed upon those defending a long drawn out lawsuit." Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991). In light of this determination and that the motion before the Court is unopposed, the Court believes a stay is appropriate here.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendant Weir's Motion to Stay Discovery [filed April 26, 2010; docket #14]. Discovery is hereby stayed as to Defendant Weir, including Rule 26(a) disclosure obligations, pending resolution of Defendant Weir's Motion to Dismiss.