ORDER GRANTING STAY OF DISCOVERY

MICHAEL E. HEGARTY, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Determination of Eleventh Amendment, Absolute and Qualified Immunities [filed March 9. 2012; docket #20]. The motion is referred to this Court for disposition. (Docket #21.) The motion is fully briefed, and oral argument would not materially assist the Court in its adjudication. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the motion to stay discovery.

I. Background

Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. (Docket #1 at 2.) The Defendants1 responded to Plaintiffs' Complaint with a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) claiming, among other defenses, entitlement to Eleventh Amendment, absolute and qualified immunities. (See docket #10). Three days after the Court entered a Scheduling Order in this case, the Defendants filed the present motion requesting that discovery be stayed pending resolution of the immunity defenses and jurisdictional challenges stated in their motion to dismiss.

II. Discussion

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). However, the defense of qualified immunity "is not a bar to all discovery." Rome v. Romero, 225 F.R.D. 640, 643 (D. Colo. 2004). There are certain circumstances when discovery is permissible despite an assertion of qualified immunity, including cases alleging official-capacity claims, requests for injunctive (as opposed to monetary) relief, and claims against entities, not individuals. See Rome, 225 F.R.D. at 643. Additionally, permitting discovery up until the point that qualified immunity is raised may be appropriate, particularly when the defense is not advanced until the filing of a motion for summary judgment. Id. at 643-44.

Defendants assert their entitlement to absolute and qualified immunities, in addition to other threshold jurisdictional challenges, in the motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs sue each of the Defendants in their official and individual capacities; however, Defendants' immunity defenses are raised with respect to both capacities. Plaintiffs seek money damages and they do not include a request for injunctive relief in the Complaint. (See Complaint, docket #1, ¶ 6 and at 30-31.) The case is still in the early stages of the litigation; Defendants responded to Plaintiffs' original Complaint with the pending motion to dismiss that could fully dispose of Plaintiffs' claims before engaging the discovery process.

The Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as incidental to its power to control its own docket. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). Legal questions regarding the court's subject matter jurisdiction should be resolved as early as possible in the litigation, before incurring the burdens of discovery. See 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); Moore v. Busby, 92 F. App'x 699, 702 (10th Cir. 2004) (affirming trial court's stay of discovery pending resolution of absolute immunity question); Albright v. Rodriguez, 51 F.3d 1531, 1534 (10th Cir. 1995) ("the Supreme Court has repeatedly `stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation.'" (citation omitted)).

Considering the early filing of the motion to dismiss premised on several immunity defenses challenging the jurisdiction of this court, and that the suit is filed for money damages only, the Court finds that the circumstances evaluated in Rome are inapplicable to the case at hand. Because Defendants' motion to dismiss raises legal questions challenging this Courts jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute, the question should be resolved as early as possible in the litigation. See Albright, 51 F.3d at 1534. Moreover, the Court finds that allowing discovery to continue in this matter against the government defendants would not serve the interests of judicial economy and efficiency. Plaintiffs' arguments concerning whether Defendants are entitled to immunity are inapplicable to the analysis herein, but are more appropriately asserted in response to the motion to dismiss. Therefore, in light of the governing case law, the Court concludes that a temporary stay of discovery as to all Defendants is appropriate in this matter, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Determination of Eleventh Amendment, Absolute and Qualified Immunities [filed March 9. 2012; docket #20] is granted. Discovery as to all defendants is stayed temporarily pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. The parties shall file a status report within three business days of receiving a ruling on the motion to dismiss, indicating what scheduling, if any, is needed.