Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02915-WYD-MEH
12-07-2012
NOEL SMITH, and STEPHANIE SMITH, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF THORNTON, MICHAEL SNOOK, in his individual and official capacity, CHRISTOPHER STUTTERS, in his individual and official capacity, BRYAN BENNETT, in his individual and official capacity, and JOHN VERMILYE, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty , United States Magistrate Judge, on December 7, 2012.
Defendants' (Unopposed) Motion to Stay Discovery [filed November 13, 2012; docket #9] is granted. The Supreme Court established that evaluating the defense of qualified immunity is a threshold issue, and "[u]ntil this threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed." Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 233 (1991) (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)); Workman v. Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 336 (10th Cir. 1992) (same); see also Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 308 & 310 (1996) (noting that discovery can be particularly disruptive when a dispositive motion regarding immunity is pending). In this case, Defendants Michael Snook, Christopher Sutters, Bryan Bennet, and John Vermilye have each asserted the defense of qualified immunity in their pending Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Application of Qualified Immunity. Although qualified immunity is not available to the City of Thornton, the District Court has recently recognized that "the Supreme Court believes that discovery should be stayed in the case as a whole, even when only one defendant is asserting qualified immunity." A.A. v. Martinez, et al., 12-cv-00732-WYD-KMT, 2012 WL 5974170, at *2 (D. Colo. Oct. 9, 2012).
Though Plaintiffs initially opposed the motion, their response indicates that they have no objection to staying discovery during the pendency of Defendants' motion to dismiss. See docket #15.
In light of the above, the Court orders that all further proceedings in this case are stayed pending the District Court's resolution of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Application of Qualified Immunity. In accordance with the stay, the Scheduling Conference set in this case for January 2, 2013, is hereby vacated. The parties are directed to file a Status Report within three (3) business days of receiving a ruling on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Application of Qualified Immunity indicating whether the Scheduling Conference should be reset.