Opinion
2:23-cv-11829
03-26-2024
ANDRE D. STRINGER, Plaintiff, v. SUDHIR BHAMINI, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT SUDHIR BHAMINI'S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY (ECF NO. 37)
PATRICIA T. MORRIS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Many of the affirmative defenses raised by the defendants involve threshold legal issues which the United States Supreme Court has directed be resolved prior to discovery taking place. Harlow v Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 818 (1982); Criss v City of Kent, 867 F.2d 259, 261 (6th Cir. 1988); Lovado v Keohane, 992 F.2d 601 (6th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that defendant Bhamini's motion is GRANTED. Discovery in this cause of action is STAYED pending resolution of the dispositive motion filed by the defendants. Should this case survive the dispositive motion, a scheduling order shall be issued.