Lawrence v. West, 2:17cv611-MHT (WO). (2018)
Court: District Court, M.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20180117621
Visitors: 20
Filed: Jan. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 16, 2018
Summary: ORDER MYRON H. THOMPSON , District Judge . Before the court is defendants' motion to stay discovery and all Rule 26 obligations (doc. no. 24). Defendants seek a stay of discovery pending the resolution of their motion to dismiss, which asserts that all claims against defendants Lowndes County, the entity designated by the plaintiff Tyanis Lawrence as Lowndes County Sheriff's Office, and Christopher West in his official capacity are due to be dismissed on various immunity theories. Lawrence
Summary: ORDER MYRON H. THOMPSON , District Judge . Before the court is defendants' motion to stay discovery and all Rule 26 obligations (doc. no. 24). Defendants seek a stay of discovery pending the resolution of their motion to dismiss, which asserts that all claims against defendants Lowndes County, the entity designated by the plaintiff Tyanis Lawrence as Lowndes County Sheriff's Office, and Christopher West in his official capacity are due to be dismissed on various immunity theories. Lawrence d..
More
ORDER
MYRON H. THOMPSON, District Judge.
Before the court is defendants' motion to stay discovery and all Rule 26 obligations (doc. no. 24). Defendants seek a stay of discovery pending the resolution of their motion to dismiss, which asserts that all claims against defendants Lowndes County, the entity designated by the plaintiff Tyanis Lawrence as Lowndes County Sheriff's Office, and Christopher West in his official capacity are due to be dismissed on various immunity theories. Lawrence does not object to the stay regarding the defendants asserting immunity, and it is in the interest of both the parties and judicial efficiency to decide the threshold question of immunity prior to permitting discovery. See Howe v. City of Enterprise, 861 F.3d 1300, 1302 (11th Cir. 2017) (emphasizing the importance of resolving questions regarding immunity at the earliest stage of litigation, as "immunity is a right not to be subjected to litigation beyond the point at which immunity is asserted.") However, because defendants do not argue that West is entitled to immunity in his individual capacity, there is no reason to stay those discovery obligations.
***
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
(1) Defendants' motion to stay (doc. no. 24), as it pertains to defendants Lowndes County, Lowndes County Sheriff's Office, and Christopher West in his official capacity, is granted.
(2) Defendants' motion to stay (doc. no. 24), as it pertains to defendant West in his individual capacity, is denied.
(3) Defendants are directed to preserve all relevant evidence in defendants' possession.
Source: Leagle
