Opinion
Case No: 05-CV-10278-BC.
February 28, 2006
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
On December 5, 2005, this Court directed Defendants to file an initial dispositive motion based on their affirmative defenses. In the notice that instructed Defendants to file such a motion, the parties were advised that the United States Supreme Court has held that the question of qualified immunity must be initially addressed prior to discovery. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S. Ct. 2727, 73 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1982). In the notice, the parties were also advised that other affirmative defenses raised by Defendants are to be brought forward in a dispositive motion prior to the commencement of discovery.
In their Motion to Stay Discovery filed February 17, 2006, Defendants ask that the Court formally stay discovery pending resolution of their dispositive motion. In his response, Plaintiff opposes the motion for several reasons, one of them being that now is not the proper time to restrict discovery. The Supreme Court case cited above specifically directs, however, that discovery should not be allowed until certain threshold questions regarding qualified immunity are resolved, as qualified immunity is not just an immunity from liability, but also an immunity from the burdens of discovery and trial. Id.
Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery is GRANTED. Should this case survive the initial dispositive motion, the Court will hold a status conference to set new deadlines for preparing the case for trial.
Review of this order is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), FED. R. CIV. P. 72, and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d).